Create an issue / PR template that makes sense for documentation

[alexellis]

This should loosely model the templates used for the "faas" repo but have specific questions / prompts which relate to adding documentation.

Checkpoints may include:

• [ ] I have tested the markdown appearance with Docker
• [ ] I have tested any new instructions
• [ ] I am the author or have permission to share this text and reference the source

[ericstoekl]

• is it an integration guide, developer guide, or core product usage guide?
• link to the documentation where it currently exists, e.g. if this is something that exists as a .md file in a repo, link to that.
• link to your version of the site with the proposed changes added (built+deployed in your public GitHub pages)

[johnmccabe]

Type of change

• [ ] new content
• [ ] correction
• [ ] improvement

Complexity of change

This would be for labels docs:minor, docs:major

• [ ] minor
• [ ] major

[alexellis]

We don’t produce a product - OpenFaaS is an open source project.

Good discussion.. anything from @rgee0 ?

[rgee0]

Is the documentation covering a new feature - please reference. We should be able to track docs against features & don't want to be merging out of order.

Who from the community "peer reviewed/tested". Could be done by GH review but I think theres a stage prior to that. If a 3rd party hasn't been able to follow what's been written then it cant be evidenced that its ready for PR.

[alexellis]

@johnmccabe would you like to put this together?