<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>+1</div><div><br>On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Russell Haering <<a href="mailto:russellhaering@gmail.com">russellhaering@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Completely agree.<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Kyle Mestery <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mestery@noironetworks.com" target="_blank">mestery@noironetworks.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Devananda van der Veen<br>
<<a href="mailto:devananda.vdv@gmail.com">devananda.vdv@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> The discussion of blueprint review has come up recently for several reasons,<br>
> not the least of which is that I haven't yet reviewed many of the blueprints<br>
> that have been filed recently.<br>
><br>
> My biggest issue with launchpad blueprints is that they do not provide a<br>
> usable interface for design iteration prior to writing code. Between the<br>
> "whiteboard" section, wikis, and etherpads, we have muddled through a few<br>
> designs (namely cinder and ceilometer integration) with accuracy, but the<br>
> vast majority of BPs are basically reviewed after they're implemented. This<br>
> seems to be a widespread objection to launchpad blueprints within the<br>
> OpenStack community, which others are trying to solve. Having now looked at<br>
> what Nova is doing with the nova-specs repo, and considering that TripleO is<br>
> also moving to that format for blueprint submission, and considering that we<br>
> have a very good "review things in gerrit" culture in the Ironic community<br>
> already, I think it would be a very positive change.<br>
><br>
> For reference, here is the Nova discussion thread:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html</a><br>
><br>
> and the specs repo BP template:<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst" target="_blank">https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst</a><br>
><br>
> So, I would like us to begin using this development process over the course<br>
> of Juno. We have a lot of BPs up right now that are light on details, and,<br>
> rather than iterate on each of them in launchpad, I would like to propose<br>
> that:<br>
> * we create an ironic-specs repo, based on Nova's format, before the summit<br>
> * I will begin reviewing BPs leading up to the summit, focusing on features<br>
> that were originally targeted to Icehouse and didn't make it, or are<br>
> obviously achievable for J1<br>
> * we'll probably discuss blueprints and milestones at the summit, and will<br>
> probably adjust targets<br>
> * after the summit, for any BP not targeted to J1, we require blueprint<br>
> proposals to go through the spec review process before merging any<br>
> associated code.<br>
><br>
> Cores and interested parties, please reply to this thread with your<br>
> opinions.<br>
><br>
</div></div>I think this is a great idea Devananda. The Neutron community has<br>
moved to this model for Juno as well, and people have been very<br>
positive so far.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Kyle<br>
<br>
> --<br>
> Devananda<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>OpenStack-dev mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>