On Mon, Apr 15, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Jessica Tomechak wrote: > I'm just wondering how we want to handle the case where review never > happens, or not in time for a scheduled release. I agree with Joe that > there's no point reverting an entire feature just because its docs were > not reviewed, but I'd be in favor of either pulling out the docs or at least > stamping them with some kind of caveat like "Preliminary draft, accuracy > not guaranteed." What do folks think about that?
I'm concerned that would be putting a lot of responsibility on documentation contributors to continually follow up and verify whether something was reviewed. If we wanted to, I suppose we could include "draft" on sections that are new and need review, and ask the reviewer to remove that. Not sure that is desirable, though - If there was a vote on something like that, I'd probably +0 it: I don't feel strongly enough to -1 it, but it doesn't seem necessary to me either. It's my hope that folks who are developing features care enough to eventually find time to review the docs written for their features and any pain points we're currently experiencing are largely related to finding a good rhythm for working on time-based releases. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
