process: define documentation_management.rst #436
Conversation
|
The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html |
83ba258 to
0387c20
Compare
|
forgot the process requirements |
7502951 to
bd971b8
Compare
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/process/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/process_req.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| Work Products | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 10000 | ||
|
|
||
| :need:`doc__documentation_mgt_plan` is a document and part of the work product :need:`wp__platform_mgmt`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is a reference from the process_areas to the actual implementation in the docs/platform_management_plan the right way to link? Shouldn't this point to a template or something? Otherwise the process direct to its implementation and it is hard to treat this as the meta model consistent in its own.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not think our primary goal is to define a process model for every project to be usable, but for the S-CORE project. Thus I would not spend the effort to create a template for something we only need once in the project but directly instantiate it (this is true for all the "PMP" documents). We may do this in future releases.
Ref: closes #317
bd971b8 to
5ee1ae9
Compare
5ee1ae9 to
91b17f9
Compare
Ref: closes #317