Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 06/24/2015 02:33 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:

[. . .]

> > I agree completely. The nicely rendered feature docs which is a
> > byproduct of the specs process in gerrit is a great part of it. So when
> > someone is trying to use a new feature or trying to fix a bug in said
> > feature 1-2 years later and trying to understand the big picture idea,
> > they can refer to the original design spec - assuming it was accurate at
> > the time that the code was actually merged. Like you said, it's
> > important to keep the specs up to date based on what was actually
> > approved in the code.
>
> Of course documentation is good. Make that kind of docs a requirement
> for merging a feature, by all means.
> 
> But the approval process we have now is just backwards. It's only result
> is preventing useful work getting done.
> 
> In addition to what Daniel mentioned elsewhere:
> 
> Why do cores need approved specs for example - and indeed for many of us
> - it's just a dance we do. I refuse to believe that a core can be
> trusted to approve patches but not to write any code other than a bugfix
> without a written document explaining themselves, and then have a yet
> more exclusive group of super cores approve that. It makes no sense.

This is one of the _baffling_ aspects -- that a so-called "super core"
has to approve specs with *no* obvious valid reasons.  As Jay Pipes
mentioned once, this indeed seems like a vestigial remnant from old
times.

FWIW, I agree with others on this thread, Nova should get rid of this
specific senseless non-process.  At least a couple of cycles ago.

[Snip, some sensible commentary.]


-- 
/kashyap