Open Stack

On 06/11/2014 03:50 PM, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 03:17:48PM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
>> While reviewing some specs I noticed that I had put myself down for more
>> Juno-2 work than is likely to be completed. I suspect this will happen
>> routinely with many folks. Also, assignees may change. This information is
>> not really part of the spec at all. Since we are still using blueprints to
>> actually track progress, I think it would be better to use the corresponding
>> fields in blueprints to make sure these values reflect reality on an ongoing
>> basis.
>>
> TL;DR: While they're not part of the spec they are part of the proposal and I
> feel they have value when I'm reviewing a spec because that does influence my
> feedback.
>
> This was something we actually debated when we first added the spec template.
> I think that they both have value, and my view at the time and still is that we
> want both, in the spec review.
>
> The milestone target isn't a hard date but just a realistic time frame of how
> long you're expecting the work to take. I think the template even says something
> like targeted milestone of completion to reflect this. The target milestone is a
> part of the spec proposal and as a part of reviewing the spec I'm considering it
> to gauge what work the spec is going to entail. I don't thinking having to jump
> back and forth between the spec and the blueprint is a good way to do it. The
> date in the spec is definitely not binding I have 2 approved bps that I targeted
> for J-1 that I'm deferring one milestone. I think just tracking that in the BP
> after the spec is approved is fine.
>
> As for the assignees I think that's also fine to keep in the template mostly
> just because of the limitation of LP to only have a single assignee. It's also
> come up where people are drafting specs but don't plan to work on anything. So
> seeing in the proposal that someone has signed up to do the work I think is
> important. Just like the milestone I think we'll track this in LP after it's
> been approved. As someone who's reviewing the specs I look to see that someone
> has signed up to work before I approve it and how many people are working on it
> to gauge how involved implementing it will be. It probably makes some sense to
> add something to the template to indicate that once it's approved LP will
> contain the contribution history and the current assignee.
I think that's fine. My issue was really more with having to use gerrit 
to do real-time tracking than with their presence in the spec when it is 
reviewed.

  -David
>
> -Matt Treinish
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140611/3ca69222/attachment.html>