Some time ago there was a discussion on dev-builds@ regarding
the state of our in-tree source code documentation. The main
focus was that MDN, moving forward, will mainly revolve around web
platform documentation and would actively start de-emphasising Gecko
contribution docs.
Now, that discussion paints the backdrop for this new thread, but it
is well worth reading on its own and had a lot of good ideas in it
that never materialised:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.builds/cp4bJ1QJXTE/Xqy_nHV5DAAJ
The reality four months on is that more documentation than ever
lives in the tree, and there is a sentiment that imposing the
same rigorous peer review process we have for source code on
documentation changes is overkill.
bz made a modest proposal that documentation changes should not
require bugs or reviews, and that they could be annotated with a
special review flag to pass pre-receive hooks. I’m including his
original email below.
If we still feel this is a good idea I would like to know what steps
to take next to make that policy.
-- >8 --
From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu>
Date: June 16, 2017 15:40
Subject: Re: Builds docs on MDN
To: dev-builds@lists.mozilla.org
On 6/16/17 9:33 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I certainly feel like the barrier for filing bugs, creating a
patch, figuring out how to use readthedocs infrastructure, getting
reviews, etc. isn't really worth it
I believe we should not require filing bugs, reviews, or any of
that for in-tree docs. Just edit the doc, commit, push. Add
"r=documentation" if needed to placate hooks. Just because it's
in-tree doesn't mean it needs to use the whole heavyweight process.
And if we can make these things auto-DONTBUILD, that's even better,
of course.
I agree it's still slower than a wiki. :(
_______________________________________________
dev-builds mailing list
dev-builds@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-builds
