Open Stack

It is better that we can have some diagram workflow just like
Gerrit_Workflow <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow> to show
the new process.

Thanks!


2014-03-21 4:23 GMT+08:00 Dolph Mathews <dolph.mathews at gmail.com>:

>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com>wrote:
>
>> We recently discussed the idea of using gerrit to review blueprint
>> specifications [1].  There was a lot of support for the idea so we have
>> proceeded with putting this together before the start of the Juno
>> development cycle.
>>
>> We now have a new project set up, openstack/nova-specs.  You submit
>> changes to it just like any other project in gerrit.  Find the README
>> and a template for specifications here:
>>
>>   http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/README.rst
>>
>>   http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/template.rst
>
>
> This is great! This is the same basic process we've used for API-impacting
> changes in keystone and it has worked really well for us, and we're eager
> to adopt the same thing on a more general level.
>
> The process seems overly complicated to me, however. As a blueprint
> proposer, I find it odd that I have to propose my blueprint as part of
> approved/ -- why not just have a single directory to file things away that
> have been implemented? Is it even necessary to preserve them? (why not just
> git rm when implemented?) Gerrit already provides a permalink (to the
> review).
>
>
>>
>>
>> The blueprint process wiki page has also been updated to reflect that we
>> will be using this for Nova:
>>
>>   https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Nova
>>
>> Note that *all* Juno blueprints, including ones that were previously
>> approved, must go through this new process.  This will help ensure that
>> blueprints previously approved still make sense, as well as ensure that
>> all Juno specs follow a more complete and consistent format.
>>
>> Before the flood of spec reviews start, we would really like to get
>> feedback on the content of the spec template.  It includes things like
>> "deployer impact" which could use more input.  Feel free to provide
>> feedback on list, or just suggest updates via proposed changes in gerrit.
>>
>> I suspect this process to evolve a bit throughout Juno, but I'm very
>> excited about the positive impact it is likely to have on our overall
>> result.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html
>>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Thanks,

Jay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140321/4b3c5063/attachment.html>