<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/11/2014 03:50 PM, Matthew
Treinish wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140611195028.GA16972@Sazabi.treinish"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 03:17:48PM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">While reviewing some specs I noticed that I had put myself down for more
Juno-2 work than is likely to be completed. I suspect this will happen
routinely with many folks. Also, assignees may change. This information is
not really part of the spec at all. Since we are still using blueprints to
actually track progress, I think it would be better to use the corresponding
fields in blueprints to make sure these values reflect reality on an ongoing
basis.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
TL;DR: While they're not part of the spec they are part of the proposal and I
feel they have value when I'm reviewing a spec because that does influence my
feedback.
This was something we actually debated when we first added the spec template.
I think that they both have value, and my view at the time and still is that we
want both, in the spec review.
The milestone target isn't a hard date but just a realistic time frame of how
long you're expecting the work to take. I think the template even says something
like targeted milestone of completion to reflect this. The target milestone is a
part of the spec proposal and as a part of reviewing the spec I'm considering it
to gauge what work the spec is going to entail. I don't thinking having to jump
back and forth between the spec and the blueprint is a good way to do it. The
date in the spec is definitely not binding I have 2 approved bps that I targeted
for J-1 that I'm deferring one milestone. I think just tracking that in the BP
after the spec is approved is fine.
As for the assignees I think that's also fine to keep in the template mostly
just because of the limitation of LP to only have a single assignee. It's also
come up where people are drafting specs but don't plan to work on anything. So
seeing in the proposal that someone has signed up to do the work I think is
important. Just like the milestone I think we'll track this in LP after it's
been approved. As someone who's reviewing the specs I look to see that someone
has signed up to work before I approve it and how many people are working on it
to gauge how involved implementing it will be. It probably makes some sense to
add something to the template to indicate that once it's approved LP will
contain the contribution history and the current assignee.</pre>
</blockquote>
I think that's fine. My issue was really more with having to use
gerrit to do real-time tracking than with their presence in the spec
when it is reviewed.<br>
<br>
-David<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20140611195028.GA16972@Sazabi.treinish"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
-Matt Treinish
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>