Skip to content

API Documentation objectives for 1.6 #29429

New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? # to your account

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.

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant