Open Stack

On 04/07/2014 11:01 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 06/04/14 14:23, Steven Dake wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> There are two problems we should address regarding the growth and change
>> to the HOT specification.
>>
>> First our +2/+A process for normal changes doesn't totally make sense
>> for hot_spec.rst.  We generally have some informal bar for controversial
>> changes (of which changes to hot_spec.rst is generally considered:).  I
>> would suggest raising the bar on hot_spec.rst to at-least what is
>> required for a heat-core team addition (currently 5 approval votes).
>> This gives folks plenty of time to review and make sure the heat core
>> team is committed to the changes, rather then a very small 2 member
>> subset.  Of course a -2 vote from any heat-core would terminate the
>> review as usual.
>>
>> Second, There is a window where we say "hey we want this sweet new
>> functionality" yet it remains "unimplemented".  I suggest we create some
>> special tag for these intrinsics/sections/features, so folks know they
>> are unimplemented and NOT officially part of the specification until
>> that is the case.
>>
>> We can call this tag something simple like
>> "*standardization_pending_implementation* for each section which is
>> unimplemented.  A review which proposes this semantic is here:
>> https://review.openstack.org/85610
>
> This part sounds highly problematic to me.
>
> I agree with you and Thomas S that using Gerrit to review proposed 
> specifications is a nice workflow, even if the "proper" place to do 
> this is on the wiki and linked to a blueprint. I would probably go 
> along with everything you suggested provided that anything pending 
> implementation goes in a separate file or files that are _not_ 
> included in the generated docs.
>
This is a really nice idea.  We could have a hot_spec_pending.rst which 
lists out the pending ideas so we can have a gerrit review of this doc.  
The doc wouldn't be generated into the externally rendered documentation.

We could still use blueprints before/after the discussion is had on the 
hot_spec_pending.rst doc, but hot_spec_pending.rst would allow us to 
collaborate properly on the changes.

The problem I have with blueprints is they suck for collaborative 
discussion, whereas gerrit rocks for this purpose.  In essence, I just 
want a tidier way to discuss the changes then blueprints provide.

Other folks on this thread, how do you feel about this approach?

Regards
-steve
> cheers,
> Zane.
>
>> My goal is not to add more review work to people's time, but I really
>> believe any changes to the HOT specification have a profound impact on
>> all things Heat, and we should take special care when considering these
>> changes.
>>
>> Thoughts or concerns?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev