RFC: Documentation philosophy for ODP projects - #44
Open
dhillonk wants to merge 9 commits into
Open
Conversation
Standardize on co-located project documentation authored as an mdBook and published via GitHub Pages from the project repository. The documentation repository is retained for org-level content and links out to each project's mdBook. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 4f445347-b4ca-4d78-9ceb-22f13d746c7d
jerrysxie
reviewed
Jul 21, 2026
makubacki
reviewed
Jul 22, 2026
Contributor
|
@dhillonk, the RFC does not need to be in draft before FCP. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR introduces a new governance/process RFC proposing that ODP standardize on co-located, in-repo project documentation (under docs/) authored with mdBook and published via GitHub Pages, while narrowing the shared documentation repo to org-level materials and a landing/index that links to each project’s docs.
Changes:
- Adds a new RFC document describing motivation, goals, requirements, and a per-project migration plan for moving project docs into their respective repos.
- Defines the intended steady state for the
documentationrepo (org-level content + landing/index) and how link stubs should preserve inbound links during migration. - Captures alternatives and prior art to justify the proposed approach.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Replace the "approach 1 vs approach 2" framing with two positive principles: no project-specific documentation in the documentation repository, and every ODP project has its own project-level mdBook. Rework the summary, motivation, goals, and requirements to lead with these principles. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Copilot-Session: 4f445347-b4ca-4d78-9ceb-22f13d746c7d
This RFC proposes a documentation philosophy for ODP projects, emphasizing that no project-specific documentation should reside in the `documentation` repository and that each ODP project should maintain its own project-level mdBook published via GitHub Pages. The change aims to resolve inconsistencies in documentation handling across ODP projects.
makubacki
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2026
makubacki
left a comment
makubacki
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved overall with some additional feedback.
Co-authored-by: Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Kubacki <michael.kubacki@microsoft.com>
This RFC establishes a documentation philosophy for ODP projects, emphasizing project-level mdBooks and organization-level content in the documentation repository. It aims to resolve inconsistencies in documentation handling across projects.
jerrysxie
approved these changes
Jul 31, 2026
philgweber
reviewed
Aug 6, 2026
|
|
||
| ## Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **No project-specific docs in the `documentation` repository.** The |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My concern here is there is no "project level" repo. Some projects span multiple repos. For those are we proposing we have one high level repo that represents each project? Or do we keep the documentation for those projects at the documentation repo level?
jerrysxie
reviewed
Aug 6, 2026
|
|
||
| ## Unresolved Questions | ||
|
|
||
| - **Migration timeline.** This RFC does not fix a completion date. Should |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have been talking about this for a while. To prompt some action, we should create backlog of issues to do the changes and then assign it to an iteration.
- Top-level README for the ODP GitHub highlighting the top-level repo for each project
- Move project specific documentation out of the documentation repo, change documentation repo to be more top-level overview.
- For project lead and owner to create their documentation and publish as gh-pages for centralized documentation to point to
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds a new RFC proposing that ODP standardize on co-located project documentation rather than continuing with today's mixed model, where some projects (Patina) keep docs next to their code while others (Secure EC, Standardized EC Services) keep them in the shared
documentationrepository. The split causes drift between code and docs, hurts discoverability, blurs ownership, and gives contributors an inconsistent experience across projects.The RFC proposes:
docs/, authored as an mdBook and published via GitHub Pages from the project repository.docs/following the project's maintainers.documentationrepository is retained but narrows to organization-level content only: charter, governance, cross-project standards, RFC index, and a landing page that links out to each project's mdBook.documentationrepository replaced by short link stubs so inbound links keep working.The RFC follows
rfc/0000-template.mdand the style of recent process RFCs (e.g.0036-private-repo-access-control.md). Because this is a process/governance RFC rather than a Rust code RFC, the code-specific sections of the template are omitted; the RFC instead includes an explicit Migration Plan section.Open questions called out in the RFC include the canonical in-repo path, versioning strategy for published books, where shared cross-project content should live, ownership of the org-level landing page, migration timeline, and whether the RFC index itself should move.