+1, both author and reviewer have to ensure that documentation is not
missed, not less important than any code. Bad documentation can make a
great feature looking really bad. I know “test and documentation” is
already mandatory so the only thing that appears now on my mind is to
remind everyone not
>
> and it appears to be required on "Submit Patch" - the problem is that
> nobody really fills it out very well. Being mandatory is insufficient.
>
+1 I agree. Wherever this ends up in the workflow, I'd like to suggest that
a reviewer verify that doc updates are *not* required as part of the "e
Ironically, those docs are inaccurate!
On 31/07/2020, 21:25, "Lorina Poland" wrote:
I was just working from this doc:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals
Test and Documentation Plan
> A new required field containing free-form text fi
I was just working from this doc:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals
Test and Documentation Plan
> A new required field containing free-form text field, required when
> transitioning to 'In Progress'.
> The intended purpose is to encourage explicit upfron
> It is mandatory to move a ticket to "In Progress"
I think you are mistaken; I have triple-checked, and it appears to be required
on "Submit Patch" - the problem is that nobody really fills it out very well.
Being mandatory is insufficient.
Also, to clarify my earlier email, there already exi
I believe that the Test and Documentation Plan field is required too early
in the progress for Documentation needs. It is mandatory to move a ticket
to "In Progress". I suspect that, while a developer may say something in
this field, they won't really be sure of the doc impact at that stage.
I wou
Impacts -> Docs
It's not mandatory, but we could perhaps consider making it so somewhere in the
workflow. Do you have a good suggestion for where?
There's also "Test and Documentation Plan" which is already mandatory.
On 31/07/2020, 20:28, "Lorina Poland" wrote:
This morning, Caleb Rac
Thanks, Lorina. I'm +1 for this, but as a jira admin I briefly looked
into adding it, and I suspect we may need to involve infra, if we
decide this is something we want.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:28 PM Lorina Poland wrote:
>
> This morning, Caleb Rackliffe mentioned to me that CASSANDRA-15907 inv
This morning, Caleb Rackliffe mentioned to me that CASSANDRA-15907 involved
some code work that has Documentation implications, just to let me know.
I'd like to propose a change to the Cassandra Jira system, to include a
field called "Doc Impact" that a developer could check if there is
accompanyi
Hi all,
Patrick beat me on this but yes, at Datastax, we do have a platform ready
for those.
We are running virtual workshops twice a week discussing Cassandra, here is
the playlist
- 8 weeks program:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW8C3nU0EzQ&list=PL2g2h-wyI4SpspPamyuinj9sgxjTFn9ex
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
