Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay S. Bryant [mailto:jsbryant at electronicjungle.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:09 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [cinder] proposal of definitions/processes for
> cinder-spec
> 
> 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 it's better to use the same template initially.
This will make the developers feel familiar and reduce the study cost if they had ever 
submit a spec in other project(for example nova).
We can improve the template if it's necessary later.

> 
> 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.
> 

I vote for a separate directory for a neat feeling. 

Best regards to you.
Ricky

> 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