<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for this Denis. Having the technical base system for
this set up is a good step forward!</p>
<p>The biggest advantage of this itself is the direct <b>link from
the documentation issue to the pull request</b> (instead of a
commit message as previously).</p>
<p>I think instead of trying to push the developer to directly work
on the documentation (which is something that not everyone in the
documentation team is stoked about either) is to push them towards
writing a nice pull request message which - in the best case - can
be copied (and rst'ified) by someone from the documentation team.
In the worst case it needs rewriting but at least the
documentation team has a place (the pull request) to hassle the
dev for more information.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>My proposals for the two comments are something like</p>
<p>Pull request (after merge):</p>
<p>> Because this pull request has been tagged as needs
documentation, a new [issue has been opened](linktoissue). Please
make sure that the documentation team has enough information by
updating the description of this pull request with readable and
understandable content, supported by images and screenshots where
appropriate. Thank you for making documenting this as easy as
possible and for working with the documentation team.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Issue (on docs side):</p>
<p>> A [pull request which requires documentation](linktopr) has
been merged. Refer to the description in the pull request. If you
have open questions, do not hesitate to ask them to @author-of-pr.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The original description can be copied to the doc issue or not,
I'm not sure what's better (keeping it only in the PR has the
advantage that it's in a single place and if modified after merge
we don't have two different copies).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>About the target version / milestones. If Richard and Harissou
already up to now kept a mapping of master -> milestone up to
date, we could consider to keep this going. Having a simple
mapping of "target branch" to "doc milestone" (e.g. master ->
3.12, release-3_10 -> 3.10, ...) somewhere sounds not too
convoluted. Or maybe Jürgens release scripts could do that even in
an automated way.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In the end, this process has to work for the documentation team,
please take these ideas with a grain of salt. In my opinion we
want to have 1) a good draft by the dev and 2) a communication
channel for documentors. Let us know what works best for you,
documentation team and to what degree you want devs to be involved
with actual writing.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Hope this helps and best regards</p>
<p>Matthias<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>