Re: [GLISS] - alternative viewpoint

[Sue Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 23, 2012 7:50 AM

> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:42:46PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
>
>> So I repeat my proposal again: a developer *must* include
>> regression tests, he *should* do the doc work, but if he feels
>> not very comfortable at writing some paragraphs for the
>> docs, he should *have to* raise an issue about that.
> 
> I don't think that piling up a bunch of issues will help.  Rather,
> we should try to not alienate our existing documentation writers,
> and once that's done, recruit new doc writers.  It wouldn't be
> hard for somebody to write docs for every new feature between each
> release.

I'd prefer to see an issue raised for the documentation by the developer
at the time the new feature is pushed to staging.  Otherwise it is likely
to be forgotten.  It was only by chance that I happened to find the
change to \time recently and my first action was to raise an issue to
document it.  If documentation is to be done as a separate activity it
should be done under an issue anyway, to keep the Bug Squad happy.

Trevor