Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Deepak Shetty" <dpkshetty at gmail.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> 
> Hi stackers,
>    I was having this thought which i believe applies to all projects of
> openstack (Hence All in the subject tag)
> 
> My proposal is to have examples or usecase folder in each project which has
> info on how to use the feature/enhancement (which was submitted as part of
> a gerrit patch)
> In short, a description with screen shots (cli, not GUI) which should be
> submitted (optionally or mandatory) along with patch (liek how testcases
> are now enforced)
> 
> I would like to take an example to explain. Take this patch @
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127587/ which adds a default volume type
> in Manila
> 
> Now it would have been good if we could have a .txt or .md file alogn with
> the patch that explains :
> 
> 1) What changes are needed in manila.conf to make this work
> 
> 2) How to use the cli with this change incorporated
> 
> 3) Some screen shots of actual usage (Now the author/submitted would have
> tested in devstack before sending patch, so just copying those cli screen
> shots wouldn't be too big of a deal)
> 
> 4) Any caution/caveats that one has to keep in mind while using this
> 
> It can be argued that some of the above is satisfied via commit msg and
> lookign at test cases.
> But i personally feel that those still doesn't give a good visualization of
> how a feature patch works in reality
> 
> Adding such a example/usecase file along with patch helps in multiple ways:
> 
> 1) It helps the reviewer get a good picture of how/which clis are affected
> and how this patch fits in the flow
> 
> 2) It helps documentor get a good view of how this patch adds value, hence
> can document it better
> 
> 3) It may help the author or anyone else write a good detailed blog post
> using the examples/usecase as a reference
> 
> 4) Since this becomes part of the patch and hence git log, if the
> feature/cli/flow changes in future, we can always refer to how the feature
> was designed, worked when it was first posted by looking at the example
> usecase
> 
> 5) It helps add a lot of clarity to the patch, since we know how the author
> tested it and someone can point missing flows or issues (which otherwise
> now has to be visualised)
> 
> 6) I feel this will help attract more reviewers to the patch, since now its
> more clear what this patch affects, how it affects and how flows are
> changing, even a novice reviewer can feel more comfortable and be confident
> to provide comments.
> 
> Thoughts ?

I would argue that for the projects that use *-specs repositories this is the type of detail we would like to see in the specifications associated with the feature themselves rather than creating another separate mechanism. For the projects that don't use specs repositories (e.g. Manila) maybe this demand is an indication they should be considering them?

-Steve