Open Stack

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Christopher Yeoh <cbkyeoh at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Sylvain Bauza <sbauza at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 15/10/2014 11:56, Christopher Yeoh a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alex Xu <xuhj at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 2014年10月15日 14:20, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering what people thought of having a convention of adding
>>>> an APIImpact flag to proposed nova specs commit messages where the
>>>> Nova API will change? It would make it much easier to find proposed
>>>> specs which affect the API as its not always clear from the gerrit
>>>> summary listing.
>>>>
>>>  +1, and is there any tool can be used by search flag?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>  Can use the message: filter in the gerrit web search interface to
>> search in commit messages, or
>> alternatively use gerritlib to write something custom.
>>
>>
>> IMHO, asking people to put a tag on a commit msg is good but errorprone
>> because there could be some misses.
>> Considering that API changes require new templates, why not asking for
>> people to provide on a separate tpl file the changes they want to provide,
>> and make use of the Gerrit file pattern search like
>> specs/kilo/approved/*.tpl ?
>>
>>
>>
> We don't require new templates as part of nova-specs and api changes don't
> necessarily change the api sample tpl files. We do ask for some jsonschema
> descriptions of the new APIs input but they work pretty well in the spec
> document itself. I agree it could be prone to spelling mistakes etc, though
> just being able to search for 'api' would be sufficient and people who
> review specs could pick up missing or mispelled flags in the commit message
> (and it wouldn't necessarily need to be restricted to just APIImpact as
> possible flags).
>
>
I think adding APIImpact will be useful.

I also want to point to the addition of Compute v2 (haven't yet proposed a
spec for v2.1) to the nova-specs repo here:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129329/

The goal is to move information from the compute-api repo into the -specs
repo. I sent an email to the PTLs in August and then added it in the What's
Up Doc Oct 7th so hopefully this doesn't take anyone by surprise. You'll
notice if you review that I don't have the template test in place that
exist for the other blueprint templates, rather the ideal is that a new
file would be added into api/v2.1 if a blueprint affects the API design
that describes the correct response/request, error codes, and other
relevant info. Also if the feature affects faults, limits, links,
pagination, and so on, the spec review would address that in the api spec.

Let me know your thoughts on the review.
Thanks,
Anne


> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141020/a9601e99/attachment.html>