Open Stack

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Devananda van der Veen
<devananda.vdv at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The discussion of blueprint review has come up recently for several reasons,
> not the least of which is that I haven't yet reviewed many of the blueprints
> that have been filed recently.
>
> My biggest issue with launchpad blueprints is that they do not provide a
> usable interface for design iteration prior to writing code. Between the
> "whiteboard" section, wikis, and etherpads, we have muddled through a few
> designs (namely cinder and ceilometer integration) with accuracy, but the
> vast majority of BPs are basically reviewed after they're implemented. This
> seems to be a widespread objection to launchpad blueprints within the
> OpenStack community, which others are trying to solve. Having now looked at
> what Nova is doing with the nova-specs repo, and considering that TripleO is
> also moving to that format for blueprint submission, and considering that we
> have a very good "review things in gerrit" culture in the Ironic community
> already, I think it would be a very positive change.
>
> For reference, here is the Nova discussion thread:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html
>
> and the specs repo BP template:
> https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst
>
> So, I would like us to begin using this development process over the course
> of Juno. We have a lot of BPs up right now that are light on details, and,
> rather than iterate on each of them in launchpad, I would like to propose
> that:
> * we create an ironic-specs repo, based on Nova's format, before the summit
> * I will begin reviewing BPs leading up to the summit, focusing on features
> that were originally targeted to Icehouse and didn't make it, or are
> obviously achievable for J1
> * we'll probably discuss blueprints and milestones at the summit, and will
> probably adjust targets
> * after the summit, for any BP not targeted to J1, we require blueprint
> proposals to go through the spec review process before merging any
> associated code.
>
> Cores and interested parties, please reply to this thread with your
> opinions.
>
I think this is a great idea Devananda. The Neutron community has
moved to this model for Juno as well, and people have been very
positive so far.

Thanks,
Kyle

> --
> Devananda
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>