Open Stack

+1

> On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Russell Haering <russellhaering at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Completely agree.
> 
> We're spending too much time discussing features after they're implemented, which makes contribution more difficult for everyone. Forcing an explicit design+review process, using the same tools as we use for coding+review seems like a great idea. If it doesn't work we can iterate.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Kyle Mestery <mestery at noironetworks.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Devananda van der Veen
>> <devananda.vdv at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > The discussion of blueprint review has come up recently for several reasons,
>> > not the least of which is that I haven't yet reviewed many of the blueprints
>> > that have been filed recently.
>> >
>> > My biggest issue with launchpad blueprints is that they do not provide a
>> > usable interface for design iteration prior to writing code. Between the
>> > "whiteboard" section, wikis, and etherpads, we have muddled through a few
>> > designs (namely cinder and ceilometer integration) with accuracy, but the
>> > vast majority of BPs are basically reviewed after they're implemented. This
>> > seems to be a widespread objection to launchpad blueprints within the
>> > OpenStack community, which others are trying to solve. Having now looked at
>> > what Nova is doing with the nova-specs repo, and considering that TripleO is
>> > also moving to that format for blueprint submission, and considering that we
>> > have a very good "review things in gerrit" culture in the Ironic community
>> > already, I think it would be a very positive change.
>> >
>> > For reference, here is the Nova discussion thread:
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html
>> >
>> > and the specs repo BP template:
>> > https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst
>> >
>> > So, I would like us to begin using this development process over the course
>> > of Juno. We have a lot of BPs up right now that are light on details, and,
>> > rather than iterate on each of them in launchpad, I would like to propose
>> > that:
>> > * we create an ironic-specs repo, based on Nova's format, before the summit
>> > * I will begin reviewing BPs leading up to the summit, focusing on features
>> > that were originally targeted to Icehouse and didn't make it, or are
>> > obviously achievable for J1
>> > * we'll probably discuss blueprints and milestones at the summit, and will
>> > probably adjust targets
>> > * after the summit, for any BP not targeted to J1, we require blueprint
>> > proposals to go through the spec review process before merging any
>> > associated code.
>> >
>> > Cores and interested parties, please reply to this thread with your
>> > opinions.
>> >
>> I think this is a great idea Devananda. The Neutron community has
>> moved to this model for Juno as well, and people have been very
>> positive so far.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle
>> 
>> > --
>> > Devananda
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140417/3377b50a/attachment.html>