[openstack-dev] Spec repos for blueprint development and review

Russell Bryant rbryant at redhat.com
Mon Mar 24 17:07:10 UTC 2014

On 03/24/2014 12:34 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
> Hi,
> So recently we started this experiment with the compute and qa programs
> to try using Gerrit to review blueprints.  Launchpad is deficient in
> this area, and while we hope Storyboard will deal with it much better,
> but it's not ready yet.

This seems to be a point of confusion.  My view is that Storyboard isn't
intended to implement what gerrit provides.  Given that, it seems like
we'd still be using this whether the tracker is launchpad or storyboard.

> As a development organization, OpenStack scales by adopting common tools
> and processes, and true to form, we now have a lot of other projects
> that would like to join the "experiment".  At some point that stops
> being an experiment and becomes practice.
> However, at this very early point, we haven't settled on answers to some
> really basic questions about how this process should work.  Before we
> extend it to more projects, I think we need to establish a modicum of
> commonality that helps us integrate it with our tooling at scale, and
> just as importantly, helps new contributors and people who are working
> on multiple projects have a better experience.
> I'd like to hold off on creating any new specs repos until we have at
> least the following questions answered:

Sounds good to me.

> a) Should the specs repos be sphinx documents?

Probably.  I see that the qa-specs repo has this up for review.  I'd
like to look at applying this to nova-specs and see how it affects the
workflow we've had in mind so far.

> b) Should the follow the Project Testing Interface[1]?

As its relevant, sure.

> c) Some basic agreement on what information is encoded?

We've been working on a template in nova-specs here:


>    eg: don't encode implementation status (it should be in launchpad)


>    do encode branches (as directories? as ...?)

IMO, yes.  The reason is that I think approval of a spec should be
limited to a given release.  If it slips, it should be re-reviewed to
make sure it still makes sense given whatever developments have
occurred.  That's why we have a juno/ directory in nova-specs.

> d) Workflow process -- what are the steps to create a new spec and make
>    sure it also exists and is tracked correctly in launchpad?

For nova-specs, the first piece of info in the template is a blueprint URL.

On the launchpad side, nothing will be allowed to be targeted to a
milestone with an approved spec attached to it.

> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProjectTestingInterface

Russell Bryant

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list