> I wonder where did this category division come from, some of these,
> like "VDSM" or "Infra" or "SLA" may not be easy for users to
> understand.
> We need to be careful about using internal development terms in user
> facing documentation.

And yet we require the user to select a team using the same terms when
filing a new bug..

I agree with you, but I think the mandatory field in bugzilla is
another candidate for consideration.

Martin

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Barak Korren <bkorren@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2017 at 17:47, John Marks <jmarks@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks to everyone who helped with the feature categorization effort on the
>> ovirt feature page.
>>
>> We've made significant progress, and thanks also to Eldan's UX work, the
>> page is looking much better organized.
>>
>> There are a few simple things you can do to help keep the page organized,
>> and to improve it.
>>
>> 1.  Adding a new feature to ovirt.org:
>>
>> Please add your feature to a suitable category:
>> - Gluster (The location in the repository is:
>> /develop/release-management/features/gluster)
>> - Infra       (Same pattern as above)
>> - Integration
>> - Metrics
>> - Network
>> - Node
>> - SLA
>> - Storage
>> - UX
>> - VDSM
>> - Virt
>
> I wonder where did this category division come from, some of these,
> like "VDSM" or "Infra" or "SLA" may not be easy for users to
> understand.
> We need to be careful about using internal development terms in user
> facing documentation.
>
> --
> Barak Korren
> RHV DevOps team , RHCE, RHCi
> Red Hat EMEA
> redhat.com | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. | redhat.com/trusted

> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel