Open Stack

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jay S. Bryant <
jsbryant at electronicjungle.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> I have gotten questions from our driver developers asking for details
> regarding the move to using cinder-specs for proposing Blueprints.  I
> brought this topic up in today's Cinder Weekly Meeting, but the meeting
> was lightly attended so we decided to move the discussion here.
>
> I am going to put this note in the form of 'question' and proposed
> answer based on the brief discussion we had today.  Note that the
> answers here are based on the assumption that we want to keep Cinder's
> use of 'specs' as close to Nova's as possible.  I used the following
> mailing list thread as a starting point for some of these answers:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032796.html
>
> Q: When is a spec approved?
> A:  When it receives a +2 from the PTL and at least one other Core
> reviewer.
>
> Q: How long are specs valid for?
> A: For the duration of the release cycle.  Any specs that are not
> approved during that period of type will need to be resubmitted for the
> subsequent release.
>
> Q: What will the spec template look like?
> A: This is one of the points I would like to discuss.  The Nova template
> currently looks like this:
> https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst
> Do we want to follow the same template.  In the interest of staying in
> sync with Nova's implementation I would say yes, but does this meet our
> needs?  Are there other/different fields we want to consider to help for
> instances where the Blueprint is for a new driver or change to a driver?
> I think we might need, for instance, a 'Drivers Impacted' field.
>
> Q: Will driver developers have to use the same template for functions in
> their drivers?
> A: Also a point I would like to discuss.  Developers had asked if a more
> limited template would be used for changes going into the developer's
> driver.  At first I thought maybe a different template for Blueprints
> against a driver might be appropriate, but after looking more closely at
> Nova's template perhaps that is not necessary.  I would lean towards
> keeping one template, but maybe not requiring all fields depending on
> what our final template ends up looking like.
>
> Q: Where do specs for python-cinderclient go?
> A: Looks like Nova has added a python-novaclient directory.  I don't
> think we would need a separate python-cinderclient-specs repository but
> don't have a strong opinion on this point.
>

We are toying with this idea. It turns out there aren't really many
python-*client only  blueprints.  This becomes a bigger issue if the cinder
program ends up with more repos in the future.

http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml#n85



>
> I am sure this is not an exhaustive list of questions/answers at this
> point in time but I wanted to start the discussion so we could help move
> this process forward.  I look forward to your feedback.
>
> -Jay Bryant
> jsbryant at electronicjungle.net
> Freenode:  jungleboyj
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140424/d3483b32/attachment.html>