Open Stack

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 14 July 2014 07:11, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I almost fully agree with this last point. The bit I don't agree with is
> > that there are some small refactor changes that aim to change a core
> > piece of the project without any impact on the final user that are
> > spec/blueprint worthy to explaining the motivation, expected results and
> > drawbacks.
> >
> > To put it in another way. Developers are consumers of project's code,
> > therefore the changes affecting the way developers interact with the
> > code are also blueprint worth it, IMHO.
>
> The way I've been playing it on cinder is to ask for a spec if I'm
> reviewing a patch that doesn't have one and I find myself questioning
> the approach rather than the code.
>
> I think it is fair to say that core reviewers shouldn't be afraid to
> ask for a spec at any time they think it will help, guidelines aside.
> This allows contributors to attempt the lightweight process and skip
> the spec if they don't expect to need one.
>

​+1 This is exactly what I was hoping to see in Cinder at least.​

>
>
> --
> Duncan Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140714/cd51fab7/attachment.html>