Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 25, 2018. It is now read-only.

Docs Review Sign-up #69

Closed
chrisdickinson opened this issue Jan 28, 2016 · 12 comments
Closed

Docs Review Sign-up #69

chrisdickinson opened this issue Jan 28, 2016 · 12 comments

Comments

@chrisdickinson
Copy link
Contributor

As part of our charter, this WG is required to review documentation coming through PRs in nodejs/node. However, we're to avoid blocking PRs from landing solely based on documentation concerns.

As a result, I propose we start a review of docs that have landed on the master branch of Node over the course of the past week. Our goal will be to clarify, correct, and edit recently landed API docs. This should prevent the Docs WG from blocking Core contributors from landing work, while ensuring a high quality of documentation for releases. Docs to be reviewed will be reported in the Docs WG Slack.

If your interests lie in spelling, grammar, or editing, this is a task that could benefit from your skills. Please comment on this issue if you're interested in helping out with this.

@Knighton910
Copy link

sounds good Chris @chrisdickinson, I'm down for proof reading.

@techjeffharris
Copy link

Docs to be reviewed will be reported in the Docs WG Slack.

Is the #github-announce channel integration working in any way/shape/form ATM or are these docs to be reviewed being listed manually until we get integration hooked up?

@chrisdickinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Right now the listing will be manual — I believe @distracteddev is working on an integration for the channel.

@thefourtheye
Copy link

It would be better if only the issues or PRs with doc label are notified in the Slack.

@chrisdickinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thefourtheye Tagged issues and PRs will likely also be included in the github-announce channel. Only announcing labeled items wouldn't be sufficient, however: core PRs may be opened and landed without the doc label being added, or being blocked on Docs WG review (this is by design — one of the concerns the CTC expressed was that Docs WG work shouldn't block core work.)

@thefourtheye
Copy link

You mean CTC doesn't expect an LGTM from Docs WG to land a doc change?

@chrisdickinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thefourtheye In the context of a PR that is primarily updating code, that is correct. If a PR only contains documentation, or is primarily documentation-focused, the Docs WG is expected to LGTM. We may be cc'd on an code-related PR to take a look at the docs, but we're not to hold up merges on those PRs. This is a compromise, but a workable one: this issue sets up part of the process for reviewing merged docs.

@thefourtheye
Copy link

@chrisdickinson Hmmm okay. What I am worried about is, there may be additional work if something, that doesn't align with Doc WG way of doing things lands then we may have to amend it with another PR. Perhaps we can improve the tools so that the doc changes are linted when make lint is done.

@chrisdickinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thefourtheye Yep — looping doc linting into make test is part of the number 1️⃣ task on the proposed ROADMAP!

@thefourtheye
Copy link

@chrisdickinson Awesome :-) Let me see if I can contribute to that.

@jinglish
Copy link

jinglish commented Feb 5, 2016

spelling, grammar, or editing

This is my jam.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Mar 13, 2018

Closing as this repository is dormant and likely to be archived soon. If this is still an issue, feel free to open it as an issue on the main node repository.

@Trott Trott closed this as completed Mar 13, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants