<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jeremy Stanley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fungi@yuggoth.org" target="_blank">fungi@yuggoth.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On 2014-06-09 19:23:03 -0500 (-0500), Anne Gentle wrote:<br>
> For two releases, incubating projects remain on StackForge.<br>
> "Projects that have spent at least two development milestones in<br>
> incubation are reviewed" (from<br>
> <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/NewProjects" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/NewProjects</a>).<br>
<br>
</div>That paragraph doesn't support your interpretation, based on my<br>
reading (and what I've seen us do so far). It looks to me like it<br>
says that the *incubation period* needs to last at least two<br>
*development milestones* before getting considered for integration<br>
(and note we have three development milestones per release cycle<br>
prior to release candidates being cut). And at any rate, what I was<br>
trying to point out is that usually as soon as the TC approves a<br>
program for incubation (not for *integration*) its projects are<br>
generally renamed into the openstack/.* Git repository namespace as<br>
soon as possible.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ah yes, sorry I read it wrong. Thanks for further clarity.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
There is also no precedent I'm aware of for an official OpenStack<br>
program maintaining projects in StackForge (if they're governed by<br>
an official program they're under the OpenStack umbrella--otherwise<br>
they go in StackForge or find hosting elsewhere). About the closest<br>
thing to which I can map your current proposal of "official program<br>
incubating a project in StackForge" would be to have the training<br>
documentation spun out into a separate program which can request an<br>
incubation evaluation directly from the TC.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is the training manuals example the first time a project has joined an existing program? </div><div><br></div><div>We are not wanting a new program but to incubate a new project.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=""><br>
> During that time period, typically projects are not on<br>
> <a href="http://docs.openstack.org" target="_blank">docs.openstack.org</a>, so I'm looking for a domain to indicate this<br>
> incubation state for the docs. It'd be great to use our definition<br>
> for incubating projects other than training. What might be a good<br>
> umbrella URL? <br>
<br>
</div>It sounds like you're looking for a way to mark some documents as<br>
officially supported vs. incomplete work in progress. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not so much this... we use /trunk/ for "incomplete work in progress" currently. </div><div><br></div><div>I think I'm looking for a publishing indicator for "not official yet, but working towards meeting documentation guidelines during incubation." </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm<br>
unconvinced that the project being in StackForge or not really<br>
makes any difference in that regard if it's still being published to<br>
an official site. If you want a separate publication namespace for<br>
them, a subdirectory is as good as anything I guess (though do most<br>
people even look at URLs in this day and age, or would theming<br>
differences make the distinction more readily apparent?). This still<br>
has no bearing on the Git repository namespace however.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay, we're getting close to what we're trying to indicate:</div><div>- is the document part of official OpenStack or not?</div>
<div>- is the document part of an integrated release or tracking with an integrated release?</div><div>- is the source repo governed with known OpenStack review teams?</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=""><br>
> Agreed, I'll start a conversation with a proposal and get it on a<br>
> TC meeting agenda, please let me know some good naming<br>
> conventions. We have <a href="http://docs.openstack.org/incubation/" target="_blank">http://docs.openstack.org/incubation/</a> --<br>
> what else might work well for this purpose?<br>
<br>
</div>That seems as good as anything to me... I'm not so much concerned<br>
about bikeshedding a particular subdirectory name as making sure we<br>
have clarity around whether StackForge projects really should be<br>
publishing documentation on <a href="http://docs.openstack.org" target="_blank">docs.openstack.org</a> (because up until now<br>
we've told them they have to use RTFD or other hosting not on<br>
official OpenStack documentation sites).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with your overall concern. Definitely we want to build a durable repeatable process we all agree to. </div><div><br></div><div>Apologies to Sean and others working on the training guides for the delay, but we have to solve this for as many incubating projects as we can.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Anne</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">--<br>
Jeremy Stanley<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openstack-docs mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org">Openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>