Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

API Documentation objectives for 1.6 #29429

Closed
7 tasks done
steveklabnik opened this issue Oct 28, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed
7 tasks done

API Documentation objectives for 1.6 #29429

steveklabnik opened this issue Oct 28, 2015 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

These are the parts of the API documentation that I'm going to try to handle during the 1.6 release. To start, I'm going to:

  1. Keep it small. This is a new process, so I want to try to under-estimate, not over-estimate.
  2. Focus on impact. This first round should be the stuff that's really, really important. It's all important, but still. More common stuff first.
  3. Choose some things which I think may already be done. I've been putting a lot of work into Iterator lately, for example, so it's going here, because that way it can be checked off.

With that out of the way, here's the plan:

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

#29552 is a regression in nightly that should be fixed before 1.6.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

Note, I'm checking the list off when I feel good about it, but aren't closing the issues until the week before the release. Want to go over them and make sure before it gets closed.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

Whew! regression fixed, and PRs submitted for the basics of all of this. Once they all land, I will do a once-over and make sure I'm happy with the results.

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2015
I meant to double check the work in #29429, but due to Mozlando, forgot. Here are two small fixes.

r? @brson I would like to get this backported to beta as well, sorry :( I don't generally want doc backports, but feel this is exceptional and worth it.
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

Since 1.6 is now in beta, this can be closed. I'm not closing the individual issues due to conventions issues, just yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant