Enable linting
Enable linting with doc8 and fix all problems found so that it passes. Change-Id: I052a1b8d016ae396917ae06c22ec29062aa10a2a
This commit is contained in:
parent
63d7a30840
commit
30ef8472fa
|
@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
|
||||||
- build-openstack-docs-pti
|
- build-openstack-docs-pti
|
||||||
check:
|
check:
|
||||||
jobs:
|
jobs:
|
||||||
- tox-linters:
|
- tox-linters
|
||||||
voting: false
|
gate:
|
||||||
|
jobs:
|
||||||
|
- tox-linters
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ Where do the Four Opens originate from? They came from a need to do things
|
||||||
differently.
|
differently.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Free software started in the 80’s by defining four (initially three)
|
Free software started in the 80’s by defining four (initially three)
|
||||||
freedoms [#fourfreedoms]_ that any free software should grant its users. Freedom
|
freedoms [#fourfreedoms]_ that any free software should grant its
|
||||||
|
users. Freedom
|
||||||
0 was the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. Freedom 1
|
0 was the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. Freedom 1
|
||||||
was the freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your
|
was the freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your
|
||||||
computing as you wish. Freedom 2 was the freedom to redistribute copies so you
|
computing as you wish. Freedom 2 was the freedom to redistribute copies so you
|
||||||
|
@ -25,7 +26,7 @@ by 2010 most open source projects were actually closed one way or another:
|
||||||
their core development may be done behind closed walls, or their governance may
|
their core development may be done behind closed walls, or their governance may
|
||||||
be locked down to ensure control by its main sponsor. Sure, their end product
|
be locked down to ensure control by its main sponsor. Sure, their end product
|
||||||
was licensed under an open source license, but those were not really community
|
was licensed under an open source license, but those were not really community
|
||||||
projects anymore.
|
projects anymore.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The control of a specific party over the code is discouraging contributors to
|
The control of a specific party over the code is discouraging contributors to
|
||||||
participate: those are seen as free labor and are not on a level playing field
|
participate: those are seen as free labor and are not on a level playing field
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -26,15 +26,21 @@ and downstream, but communities are complex organisms, and the reality is much
|
||||||
more dynamic. It's important to establish common goals and build strong
|
more dynamic. It's important to establish common goals and build strong
|
||||||
connections between the forces, because operating in silos will dilute the
|
connections between the forces, because operating in silos will dilute the
|
||||||
power of the community. Each force affects the others and they have to be
|
power of the community. Each force affects the others and they have to be
|
||||||
working in harmony to achieve anything.
|
working in harmony to achieve anything.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Open Community defines how to best align these forces through:
|
Open Community defines how to best align these forces through:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Common mission & goals. - Effective governance & leadership. - Diversity &
|
- Common mission & goals.
|
||||||
Inclusiveness. - Contributor recognition & motivation. - Communication. -
|
- Effective governance & leadership.
|
||||||
Branding & positioning (example of collaboration across forces, product
|
- Diversity & Inclusiveness.
|
||||||
definition). - Education & On-boarding. - Marketing & events. - Ambassadors
|
- Contributor recognition & motivation.
|
||||||
& meet-ups. - Cross-community collaboration (NIH).
|
- Communication.
|
||||||
|
- Branding & positioning (example of collaboration across forces, product
|
||||||
|
definition).
|
||||||
|
- Education & On-boarding.
|
||||||
|
- Marketing & events.
|
||||||
|
- Ambassadors & meet-ups.
|
||||||
|
- Cross-community collaboration (NIH).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Common Mission & Goals
|
Common Mission & Goals
|
||||||
----------------------
|
----------------------
|
||||||
|
@ -200,10 +206,10 @@ ultimately realized that we excluded a large portion of the world where Google
|
||||||
products were inaccessible/unavailable.
|
products were inaccessible/unavailable.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Host meetings in way that can be archived and searched so that the
|
Host meetings in way that can be archived and searched so that the
|
||||||
conversations are accessible to all time-zones and participants who do not speak
|
conversations are accessible to all time-zones and participants who do
|
||||||
English as their first language. Internationalization (translation, tool
|
not speak English as their first language. Internationalization
|
||||||
choices like google docs, time-zones), in general, helps foster a more diverse
|
(translation, tool choices like google docs, time-zones), in general,
|
||||||
group of contributors.
|
helps foster a more diverse group of contributors.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Board meetings in particular should be open so that anyone can dial in.
|
Board meetings in particular should be open so that anyone can dial in.
|
||||||
Notes/re-cap should be sent out to the community at large via mailing lists
|
Notes/re-cap should be sent out to the community at large via mailing lists
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ evaluating a patch can include:
|
||||||
not introduce regressions?
|
not introduce regressions?
|
||||||
- Documentation: does a new feature include documentation on what
|
- Documentation: does a new feature include documentation on what
|
||||||
it does and how to properly configure it?
|
it does and how to properly configure it?
|
||||||
- Purpose: does the code implement a feature identified in the open design process?
|
- Purpose: does the code implement a feature identified in the open
|
||||||
|
design process?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Automation, like automated unit, integration, and style checking, can go a long
|
Automation, like automated unit, integration, and style checking, can go a long
|
||||||
way to establishing a baseline standard for new code. Code review by trusted
|
way to establishing a baseline standard for new code. Code review by trusted
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -52,12 +52,13 @@ The "Open Source" Principle in Practice
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
"Open Source" begins with the choice of license a community applies to its
|
"Open Source" begins with the choice of license a community applies to its
|
||||||
project. In most cases at the OpenStack Foundation, we use v2.0 of the Apache
|
project. In most cases at the OpenStack Foundation, we use v2.0 of the Apache
|
||||||
License [#apachev2]_. The license meets the requirements of being able to modify and
|
License [#apachev2]_. The license meets the requirements of being able
|
||||||
|
to modify and
|
||||||
redistribute a work. It includes a number of provisions that also protect
|
redistribute a work. It includes a number of provisions that also protect
|
||||||
end-users by granting copyright and patent licenses to all end users, while
|
end-users by granting copyright and patent licenses to all end users, while
|
||||||
limiting liability to the original copyright holder. This patent protection is
|
limiting liability to the original copyright holder. This patent protection is
|
||||||
one of the distinguishing features in comparison to other open source licenses,
|
one of the distinguishing features in comparison to other open source licenses,
|
||||||
like the MIT License.
|
like the MIT License.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In practice, individual and corporate contributors need to understand the
|
In practice, individual and corporate contributors need to understand the
|
||||||
consequences of contributing code to an Apache Licensed project, particularly
|
consequences of contributing code to an Apache Licensed project, particularly
|
||||||
|
@ -73,7 +74,7 @@ authorized to submit changes to the project and understands that their
|
||||||
contributions will be used in accordance with the license. A CLA, being a
|
contributions will be used in accordance with the license. A CLA, being a
|
||||||
stronger document, is also considered a barrier to entry. A DCO, in contrast,
|
stronger document, is also considered a barrier to entry. A DCO, in contrast,
|
||||||
lowers the barrier to entry by removing the requirement to consent to a legal
|
lowers the barrier to entry by removing the requirement to consent to a legal
|
||||||
document [#CLAvDCO]_.
|
document [#CLAvDCO]_.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Apache 2.0 is very liberal in allowing companies to modify and use the code in
|
Apache 2.0 is very liberal in allowing companies to modify and use the code in
|
||||||
any way they want, and doesn't place requirements to release changes (although
|
any way they want, and doesn't place requirements to release changes (although
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue