<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/12/16 1:51 PM, Doug Hellmann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1463075441-sup-9350@rhx1" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-05-12 01:44:06 -0400:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello all,
Here are a few important announcements for the members involved in the
Glance community.
Priorities:
=======
* The Glance priorities for Newton were discussed at the contributors'
meetup at summit.
* There are a few items that were carried forward from Mitaka that are
still our priorities and there are a couple of items from the summit
that we have made a priority for reviews.
Code review priority:
* Import refactor
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Is "Import refactor" what you're calling the work on the new API to get
images into glance to solve the DefCore compatibility issue?
Doug</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Yes, we call it that as per the (original) spec review title.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1463075441-sup-9350@rhx1" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
* Nova v1, v2 support
* Image sharing changes
* Documentation changes [1], [2]
The required attention from Glance team on Nova v1, v2 support is
minimal; the people who are actively involved should review the code and
the spec.
Everyone is encouraged to review the Import refactor work however, if
you do not know where to start you can join the informal syncs on
#openstack-glance Thursdays at 1330 UTC. If you do not see people
chatting you are more than encouraged to highlight the following irc
nicks: rosmaita, nikhil (to the very least)
Everyone is encouraged to review the Image sharing changes that are
currently being discussed. Although, the constructs are not going to
hamper the standard image workflows, the experiences of sharing may be
different after these changes. There will be subsequent changes to the
python-glanceclient for accommodating server changes.
Documentation changes are something that we must accommodate in this
cycle; thanks to the docs team the code draft was given to us.
Documentation liaison is working hard to get it in the right shape and a
couple more reviewers are to be assigned to review this change. We need
volunteers for the review work.
Process to be adopted in Newton:
==========================
Full specs:
* For all newly introduced features, API Impacting changes and changes
that could either have an impact security or larger impact on operators
will need a full spec against the openstack/glance-specs repo.
* For each spec, you need to create a corresponding blueprint in
launchpad [3] and indicate your intention to target that spec in the
newton milestone. You will want to be judicious on selecting the
milestone; if we see too many proposals for a particular milestone
glance-core team will have to selectively reject some of those or move
to a different milestone. Please set the url of the spec on your blueprint.
* Please use the template for the full spec [4] and try to complete it
as much as possible. A spec that is missing some critical info is likely
to not get feedback.
* Only blueprints by themselves will not be reviewed. You need a spec
associated with a blueprint to get the proposal reviewed.
* The reviewers section [5] is very important for us to determine if the
team will have enough time to review your spec and code. This
information plays important role in planning and prioritize your spec.
Reach out to these core-reviewer nicks [6] on #openstack-glance channel
to see who is interested in assigning themselves to your spec.
* Please make sure that each spec has the problem statement well
defined. The problem statement isn't a one liner that indicates -- it
would be nice to have this change, admins should do operations that user
can't, Glance should do so and so, etc. Problem statement should
elaborate your use case and explain what in Glance or OpenStack can be
improved, what exists currently, if any, why would it be beneficial to
make this change, how would the view of cloud change after this change, etc.
* All full specs require +W from PTL/liaison
Lite specs:
* All proposals that are expected to change the behavior of the system
significantly are required to have a lite-spec.
* For a lite-spec you do not need a blueprint filed and you don't need
to target it to particular milestones. Glance would accept most
lite-specs until newton-3 unless a cross-project or another conflicting
change is a blocker.
* Please make sure that each lite-spec has a well defined problem
statement. The problem statement is NOT a one liner that indicates -- it
would be nice to have this change, admins should do operations such
operations that user can't, Glance should do so and so, etc. Problem
statement should elaborate your use case and explain what in Glance or
OpenStack can be improved, what exists currently, if any, why would it
be beneficial to make this change, how would the view of cloud change
after this change, etc.
* All lite specs should have at least two +2 (agreement from at least
two core reviewers). There is no need to wait on +W from the PTL but it
is highly encouraged to consult a liaison (module expert).
* Lite specs can be merged irrespective of the spec freeze dates.
Important dates to remember:
=======================
* June 2, R-18: newton-1
* June 17, R-16: Spec soft freeze, Glance mid-cycle (15th-17th)
(depending on attendance). If you've already booked travel contact me ASAP.
* July 14, R-12: newton-2
* Jul 29, R-10: Spec hard freeze
* Aug 23, R-6: final glance_store release
* Aug 30, R-5: newton-3, lite-spec freeze, feature freeze, final
glanceclient release, soft string freeze
* Sept 13, R-3: RC1, hard string freeze
* Oct 7, R+0: Newton release
Spec owners and reviewers:
======================
* Currently there are 12 Glance core reviewers with some on hiatus, some
part time core reviewers (even less than 50%) and a few others with more
than 70% upstream time.
* I have consolidated some information that we effectively have a little
more than 5 core reviewers with 100% upstream time. I hope to improve
that over the next couple of months if enough people are interested in
contributing upstream who have already expressed in reviewing more
Glance code.
* So, while we would ideally be able to knock out 6 full specs in a
cycle (with each spec requiring at least two cores associated with it),
with current effectiveness we would like to target 2-3 specs depending
on the size of the changes.
* All spec owners are highly encouraged to start a conversation with one
or two of the core-reviewers mentioned in [6] and see the possibility of
having 'champions' on those specs.
* While the associated core reviewers are not required to review the
entire set of patches associated with that spec, they do however are a
point of contact, for representing Glance's point of view on the spec.
* If you are looking to associate yourself as a reviewer to a spec and
do not know which one you should pick, feel free to reach out to me.
* Also, if you are looking to make your mark and trying to work your way
into the core team, it will be highly appreciated if you assign yourself
to an important spec and help them drive the feature.
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-May/008536.html">http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-May/008536.html</a>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312259">https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312259</a>
[3] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance</a>
[4] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst">https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst</a>
[5]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst#reviewers">https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst#reviewers</a>
[6] core-reviewer nicks: rosmaita, jokke_, flwang, flaper87, hemanthm,
sigmavirus24, kairat, kragniz, mfedosin, nikhil, sabari, mclaren
[7] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://review.openstack.org/315347">https://review.openstack.org/315347</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</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>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Thanks,
Nikhil</pre>
</body>
</html>