Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Cooper writes ("[RFC v2 for-4.6 0/2] In-tree feature documentation"):
> An issue which Xen has is an uncertain support statement for features.
> Given the success seen with docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown, and in
> particular keeping it up to date, introduce a similar system for
> features.
> 
> Patch 1 introduces a proposed template (and a makefile tweak to include
> the new docs/features subdirectory), while patch 2 is a feature document
> covering the topic of migration.
> 
> v2 Adds %Revision and #History table, following feedback from v1.
> 
> This is tagged RFC as I expect people to have different views as to what
> is useful to include.  I would particilarly appreciate feedback on the
> template before it starts getting used widely.
> 
> Lars: Does this look like a reasonable counterpart to your formal
> support statement document?
> 
> Jim: Per your request at the summit for new information, is patch 2
> suitable?

I have read both patches.

I do wonder whether cross-referencing all the "issues" is a good idea.
It seems like it might be a lot of work to keep them in step.

I don't have anything else to add to the comments that others have
made.

Overall I think this is a good template.  The extra overhead may even
be negative.  The work of writing up a feature in the style of this
document may obviate the need to put much of the same information in a
0/N or a design document, and the existing template is quite
lightweight.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel