Open Stack

On 11/20/2013 05:37 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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.

Correct, but there aren't that many that fall into this category, and
they are pretty easy to review in comparison.

I closed a few like this, but after these comments, I think I agree that
it doesn't hurt to allow them and may actually be discouraging to the
submitter to have their blueprint closed out on these grounds.

I'll update the language as suggested by John, to reflect criteria
around requiring blueprints, not around when we close them.

-- 
Russell Bryant