Open Stack

+1 to this process, and I think the template is pretty reasonable.

One thing to call out maybe, is are there any known failure scenarios? If
so, why shouldn't they block the spec?


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Devananda van der Veen <
devananda.vdv at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140519/90c055a3/attachment.html>