Open Stack

On 6/24/2015 9:09 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> On 06/24/2015 02:33 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> [. . .]
>
>>> I agree completely. The nicely rendered feature docs which is a
>>> byproduct of the specs process in gerrit is a great part of it. So when
>>> someone is trying to use a new feature or trying to fix a bug in said
>>> feature 1-2 years later and trying to understand the big picture idea,
>>> they can refer to the original design spec - assuming it was accurate at
>>> the time that the code was actually merged. Like you said, it's
>>> important to keep the specs up to date based on what was actually
>>> approved in the code.
>>
>> Of course documentation is good. Make that kind of docs a requirement
>> for merging a feature, by all means.
>>
>> But the approval process we have now is just backwards. It's only result
>> is preventing useful work getting done.
>>
>> In addition to what Daniel mentioned elsewhere:
>>
>> Why do cores need approved specs for example - and indeed for many of us
>> - it's just a dance we do. I refuse to believe that a core can be
>> trusted to approve patches but not to write any code other than a bugfix
>> without a written document explaining themselves, and then have a yet
>> more exclusive group of super cores approve that. It makes no sense.
>
> This is one of the _baffling_ aspects -- that a so-called "super core"
> has to approve specs with *no* obvious valid reasons.  As Jay Pipes
> mentioned once, this indeed seems like a vestigial remnant from old
> times.
>
> FWIW, I agree with others on this thread, Nova should get rid of this
> specific senseless non-process.  At least a couple of cycles ago.

Specs were only added a couple of cycles ago... :)  And they were added 
to fill a gap, which has already been pointed out in this thread.  So if 
we remove them without a replacement for that gap, we regress.

>
> [Snip, some sensible commentary.]
>
>

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann