Open Stack

+1 to this.  It would be great to read the compiled spec and have it be searchable/filtered.
-Anthony

Thank you for the update, Kyle.

I was sceptical about this move at first but hopefully I was wrong. The specs repository indeed eases a lot of the work from a submitter and reviewer point of view.

Is there any web page where all approved blueprints are being published to? Jenkins builds such pages I’m looking for but they are linked to each patchset individually (e.g., http://docs-draft.openstack.org/77/92477/6/check/gate-neutron-specs-docs/f05cc1d/doc/build/html/). In addition, listing BPs currently under reviewing and linking to its review.o.o page could potentially draw more attention/awareness to what’s being proposed to Neutron (and other OpenStack projects).

Thanks,
Carlos Goncalves

On 11 Jun 2014, at 18:25, Kyle Mestery <mestery at noironetworks.com<mailto:mestery at noironetworks.com>> wrote:

tl;dr: The specs repository has been great to work with. As a
reviewer, it makes reviews easier. As PTL, it makes tracking easier as
well.

Since Juno-1 is about to close, I wanted to give everyone an update on
Neutron's usage of the specs repository. These are observations from
using this since a few weeks before the Summit. I thought it would be
good to share with the broader community to see if other projects
using spec repositories had similar thoughts, and I also wanted to
share this info for BP submitters and reviewers.

Overall, the spec repository has been great as a tool to consolidate
where new ideas are documented and made into something we can merge
and move forward with. Using gerrit for this has been great. We've
merged a good amount of specs [1], and the process of hooking these to
Launchpad for milestone tracking has been straightforward. As the PTL
of Neutron, I've found the specs repository helps me out immensely,
the workflow is great.

One of the things I've noticed is that sometimes it's hard to get
submitters to respond to feedback on the specs repository. If you look
at our current queue of open BPs [2], we have a lot which are waiting
for feedback from submitters. I don't know how to address this issue,
any feedback appreciated here.

Secondly, with so many open BPs, it's unlikely that all of these will
make Juno. With what we already have approved and being worked, a lot
of these will likely slide to the "K" release. At some point in the
next few weeks, I may start going through some and marking them as
such.

So, to summarize, I'm very happy with the workflow from the specs repository.

Thanks for reading!
Kyle

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/neutron-specs,n,z
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/neutron-specs,n,z

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20140612/97b92430/attachment.html>