+1 for Robert's suggestion. In fact, I thought this was already our practice. Also I would not allow exceptions from that rule in the "stable" codebase. Writing documentation and describing how stuff should be used lets you think about it in a different way and can help to make the feature better. Also features which are not documented do not exist. We might be less strict with changes to flink-staging but as soon as it moves out, documentation must be "complete".
However, such a rule will only help to have (more) complete documentation, but not necessarily good documentation. I observed that documentation tends to cluttered and more fragmented if more people add and change stuff. I guess from time to time, documentation just needs to be restructured and partially rewritten. 2015-06-03 18:19 GMT+02:00 Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikala...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > in principle I agree with Robert's suggestion. > > I can only see two cases where this might not work well: > > - if the change is something big / totally new and the documentation to be > written is large. In this case, I would prefer to have a separate issue for > docs to ensure better quality and review, otherwise we might end up with > following "improve docs" issues > > - if the code change is blocking some other issue. Then, it might make > sense to merge the code fast and update the docs fast. > > In any case though, I agree that it's not a good idea to have someone > adding the missing docs just before the release. > > Cheers, > -Vasia. > > On 3 June 2015 at 17:27, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
