Open Stack

On 02:22 Sat 07 Mar     , Chen, Wei D wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of
> them (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory for getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to
> confirm with that?
> 
> Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3], only PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the
> acceptable procedure for the coming 'L'.
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147726/
> [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-k3-priorities
> [4] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata
> [5] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata

There are a few things:

1) The blueprint should've been approved and targeted for K-3 after the spec
   was merged, but that never happened.
2) This shouldn't have been -2 on March 6th, it still had until March 10th
   technically since the blueprint should've been approved.
3) There were disageements on snapshots having mutable metadata as discussed in
   a Cinder meeting [1]. I agree with Duncan on how this can break billing
   properties. I also mentioned in the meeting that I would not merge this
   until that was addressed.

Regardless, we're way too late for K now. Apologies on this not been targeted,
but feel free to let me know in the future if I miss something of yours that
should be targeted so it's prioritized.

[1] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-11-16.00.log.html#l-186

-- 
Mike Perez