[openstack-dev] [Nova] Timeline for the rest of the Juno release

John Garbutt john at johngarbutt.com
Wed Jun 25 09:10:52 UTC 2014

Seems like we all agree on the basic idea here, which is great.

I think just not concentrating on nova-spec reviews is fine, at least,
it is the simplest way to implement the freeze (as Russell pointed

I so worry about setting the right expectations for the poor souls
who's specs might stick in there for a few months unreviewed, and we
come back to re-write the template for K and tell them they did it all
wrong. But lets try avoid that.

I guess the carrot is we have more reviewer (by which I mean everyone)
focus on code, post the nova-specs soft freeze.

Lets bring this up at the nova-meeting on Thursday (at the end) and
see if we can get some consensus in there. Either way we should talk
about the options to relax some of the nova-spec process at the
mid-cycle summit, as I feel we have somewhat over-rotated here.


On 25 June 2014 00:47, Michael Still <mikal at stillhq.com> wrote:
> Your comments are fair. I think perhaps at this point we should defer
> discussion of the further away deadlines until the mid cycle meetup --
> that will give us a chance to whiteboard the flow for that period of
> the release.
> Or do you really want to lock this down now?
> Michael
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Day, Phil <philip.day at hp.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbryant at redhat.com]
>>> Sent: 24 June 2014 13:08
>>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Timeline for the rest of the Juno release
>>> On 06/24/2014 07:35 AM, Michael Still wrote:
>>> > Phil -- I really want people to focus their efforts on fixing bugs in
>>> > that period was the main thing. The theory was if we encouraged people
>>> > to work on specs for the next release, then they'd be distracted from
>>> > fixing the bugs we need fixed in J.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Michael
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Day, Phil <philip.day at hp.com> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Michael,
>>> >>
>>> >> Not sure I understand the need for a gap between "Juno Spec approval
>>> freeze" (Jul 10th) and "K opens for spec proposals" (Sep 4th).    I can
>>> understand that K specs won't get approved in that period, and may not get
>>> much feedback from the cores - but I don't see the harm in letting specs be
>>> submitted to the K directory for early review / feedback during that period ?
>>> I agree with both of you.  Priorities need to be finishing up J, but I don't see
>>> any reason not to let people post K specs whenever.
>>> Expectations just need to be set appropriately that it may be a while before
>>> they get reviewed/approved.
>> Exactly - I think it's reasonable to set the expectation that the focus of those that can produce/review code will be elsewhere - but that shouldn't stop some small effort going into knocking the rough corners off the specs at the same time
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> --
> Rackspace Australia
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list