Open Stack

On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 15:11 -0700, Walter A. Boring IV wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 05:09 PM, Jay S. Bryant 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.
> I think for starters, we should use the same template until we find
> it doesn't fit our needs.   I just filed my first nova-spec bp
> and rather liked the template and think it would be nice to have this
> for Cinder....  cinder-spec.

Good to know Walter.  I haven't been through the process yet.  Glad to
know you felt good about it.  That is helpful to know

> 
> 
> >
> > 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.
> for now I vote for using the same template.

The more I think about it, I agree.

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