Open Stack

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:21:14AM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Russell Bryant wrote:
> > One of the bits of feedback that came from the "Nova Project Structure
> > and Process" session at the design summit was that it would be nice to
> > skip having blueprints for smaller items.
> > 
> > In an effort to capture this, I updated the blueprint review criteria
> > [1] with the following:
> > 
> >   Some blueprints are closed as unnecessary. Blueprints are used for
> >   tracking significant development efforts. In general, small and/or
> >   straight forward cleanups do not need blueprints. A blueprint should
> >   be filed if:
> > 
> >    - it impacts the release notes
> >    - it covers significant internal development or refactoring efforts
> > [...]
> 
> While I agree we should not *require* blueprints for minor
> features/efforts, should we actively prevent people from filing them (or
> close them if they are filed ?)
> 
> Personally (I know I'm odd) I like to have my work (usually small stuff)
> covered by a blueprint so that I can track and communicate its current
> completion status -- helps me keep track of where I am.
> 
> So the question is... is there a cost associated with tolerating "small"
> blueprints ? Once they are set to "Low" priority they mostly disappear
> from release management tracking so it's not really a burden there.

IIUC, Russell has a desire that unless a blueprint is approved, then the
corresponding patches would not be merged. So from that POV, each blueprint
has a burden of approval to consider, even if it is 'Low' priority. This
would be a reason to not require blueprints for 'trivial' changes.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|