For me it also makes sense that the contributor who has implemented the changes and thus knows them best should update the documentation accordingly.
+1 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@icloud.com> wrote: > +1 Good. PR should contain documentation. > > Regards, > Chiwan Park > > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:24 AM, Lokesh Rajaram <rajaram.lok...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > +1. I like this idea, not sure if my vote counts :) > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> as part of making our codebase ready for the upcoming 0.9 release, I've > >> started to go over the documentation of Flink. > >> > >> It seems that our current approach for documenting stuff: > >> - We implement and merge a feature > >> - We open a JIRA for documenting it. > >> > >> Before the release, we realize that we have many open documentation > issues > >> (currently 26) and hope that somebody (in this case me) is fixing them. > >> > >> Some of the pull requests also contain documentation, but certainly not > all > >> of them. > >> > >> > >> I am proposing to: > >> - add a rule to our coding guidelines [1] which states that every change > >> that affects the documentation needs to update the documentation > >> accordingly. > >> - Committers have to make sure that pull request are following the rule > >> before accepting the change. Otherwise, we reject the pull request. > >> > >> > >> [1] http://flink.apache.org/coding-guidelines.html > >> > > > > > >
