Open Stack

Added -

https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs/commit/7f34f353332ad5b26830dadc8c9f870df399feb7


On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Robert Collins
<robertc at robertcollins.net>wrote:

> I'd like to suggest two things.
>
> Firstly a section on scale (as opposed to performance).
>
> Secondly, I'd like to see additional hard requirements that will be
> added to drivers called out (e.g. a 'Driver Impact' section).
>
> -Rob
>
> On 19 May 2014 10:03, Devananda van der Veen <devananda.vdv at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As with several other projects, and as discussed at the summit, Ironic is
> > moving to a formal / specs-based design process. The reasons for this
> have
> > been well summarized in previous email threads in other projects [*],
> but in
> > short, it's because, until now, nearly all our blueprints lacked a design
> > specification which could be compared to the proposed code, resulting in
> the
> > code-review also being a design-review. This week, I will be resetting
> the
> > "Definition" status of all blueprints to "New", and require everything
> to go
> > through a specs review process -- yes, even the ones that were previously
> > approved.
> >
> > I've proposed the creation of the openstack/ironic-specs repo here:
> >   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94113/
> >
> > And put up an initial version on github to start the process:
> >   https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs
> >
> https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst
> >
> > I've begun sketching out specs proposals for some of the
> essential-for-juno
> > items, which can be found in the above repo for now, and will be proposed
> > for review once the openstack/ironic-specs repository is created.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I based this on the Nova specs repo, with some
> > customization geared towards Ironic (eg, I removed "notifications"
> section
> > and added some comments regarding hardware). At this point, I'd like
> > feedback from other core reviewers and folks familiar with the specs
> > process. Please think about the types of architectural changes you look
> for
> > during code reviews and make sure the specs template addresses them, and
> > that they apply to Ironic.
> >
> > I will focus on creating and landing the specs for items essential for
> > graduation first and then prioritize review of additional feature specs
> > based on the community feedback we received at the Juno Design Summit. I
> > will send another email soliciting the community members and vendors to
> > propose specs for the features they are working on once the initial work
> on
> > the repo is complete (hopefully before end-of-week).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Devananda
> >
> >
> > [*] eg.:
> >
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032753.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140519/888f5e2d/attachment.html>