[openstack-dev] How to improve the specs review process (was Re: [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward)

Stefano Maffulli stefano at openstack.org
Wed Aug 6 19:07:01 UTC 2014

On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a smartest
> reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.

And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody
caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed
badly here:


What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me
is the most important question to answer.  If I remember correctly we
introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before*
the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming
conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed
upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend
time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to
be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are.

Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and
do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from
this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take
GBP as an example. Thoughts?


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list