Motion to move Feature Freeze to July 23rd

[Daniel Morissette]

Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
> 
> I would also like to comment that I would like to see additional 
> developer documentation in rough added but developers of new features, 
> especially those that do not have additional feature development work to 
> do. While I know the RFC is supposed to help in this areas it is far 
> from complete and often not useful from the how to use the feature 
> perspective. I think this is critical on multiple fronts:
> 

I agree that developers need to document their work and am often 
frustrated by features committed without docs or even a proper ticket 
comment.

Personally I think of a RFC as exactly what you describe as developer 
docs. I think it should be a requirement of a RFC to contain enough 
information and examples for users to be able to use it, so if you have 
a specific RFC in mind that doesn't contain enough information then 
perhaps this RFC needs an update.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against better organized dev docs, but we'd 
need a volunteer to take the lead on that... and at least in the 
meantime we have RFCs.


Actually, talking of docs, the main problem I see is the lack of a place 
to put new and updated docs for new features during development. I am 
planning to update the Plone site docs with the new features that I 
added to 5.0 but I can't do that since the docs on the site are for 
v4.10. I think we'd need versioning for the docs on the site, but last 
time we talked about that it seemed that Plone isn't very friendly about 
that. Any news on a good way to handle this from the Docs people?

Daniel
-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/