Open Stack

I’ve also added APIImpact flag info to the Git Commit Messages page [1].

Everett

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external_references


On Nov 19, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Everett Toews <everett.toews at rackspace.com<mailto:everett.toews at rackspace.com>> wrote:


On Nov 13, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Everett Toews <everett.toews at rackspace.com<mailto:everett.toews at rackspace.com>> wrote:

On Nov 12, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Angus Salkeld <asalkeld at mirantis.com<mailto:asalkeld at mirantis.com>> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Everett Toews <everett.toews at rackspace.com<mailto:everett.toews at rackspace.com>> wrote:
Hi All,

Chris Yeoh started the use of an APIImpact flag in commit messages for specs in Nova. It adds a requirement for an APIImpact flag in the commit message for a proposed spec if it proposes changes to the REST API. This will make it much easier for people such as the API Working Group who want to review API changes across OpenStack to find and review proposed API changes.

For example, specifications with the APIImpact flag can be found with the following query:

https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova-specs+message:apiimpact,n,z

Chris also proposed a similar change to many other projects and I did the rest. Here’s the complete list if you’d like to review them.

Barbican: https://review.openstack.org/131617
Ceilometer: https://review.openstack.org/131618
Cinder: https://review.openstack.org/131620
Designate: https://review.openstack.org/131621
Glance: https://review.openstack.org/131622
Heat: https://review.openstack.org/132338
Ironic: https://review.openstack.org/132340
Keystone: https://review.openstack.org/132303
Neutron: https://review.openstack.org/131623
Nova: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129757
Sahara: https://review.openstack.org/132341
Swift: https://review.openstack.org/132342
Trove: https://review.openstack.org/132346
Zaqar: https://review.openstack.org/132348

There are even more projects in stackforge that could use a similar change. If you know of a project in stackforge that would benefit from using an APIImapct flag in its specs, please propose the change and let us know here.


I seem to have missed this, I'll place my review comment here too.

I like the general idea of getting more consistent/better API. But, is reviewing every spec across all projects just going to introduce a new non scalable bottle neck into our work flow (given the increasing move away from this approach: moving functional tests to projects, getting projects to do more of their own docs, etc..). Wouldn't a better approach be to have an API liaison in each project that can keep track of new guidelines and catch potential problems?

I see have added a new section here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons

Isn't that enough?

I replied in the review. We’ll continue the discussion there.

The cross project liaisons are big help but the APIImpact flag let’s the API WG automate discovery of API changing specs. It's just one more tool in the box to help us find changes that impact the API.

Note that the patch says nothing about requiring a review from someone associated with the API WG. If you add the APIImpact flag and nobody comes along to review it, continue on as normal.

The API WG is not intended to be a gatekeeper of every change to every API. As you say that doesn't scale. We don't want to be a bottleneck. However, tools such as the APIImpact flag can help us be more effective.

(Angus suggested I give my review comment a bit more visibility. I agree :)

Everett

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20141124/3189a274/attachment.html>