Open Stack

On 06/24/2015 03:08 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> 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.
>> Document it - sure. Discuss on ML/patches - by all means, but this is
>> just senseless.
> 
> I completely disagree with this (and find it offensive). Cores are not
> gods. They review things and try to do their best to keep quality high.
> However, that does not mean that they can single-handedly design and
> implement a large complex feature on their own without feedback. It's
> the same reason that cores need other cores to review their code.
>

So I disagree that Gerrit/specs is good a way to do this. Also - cores
have no problem figuring out how to validate designs wihtout the
rigidity of the process, they know each other personally, and all other
people (domain experts involved, stakeholres) who could help.

Given unlimited resources, sure - but there is ton of stuff cores/long
term lurkers could be doing without having to go through the same rigid
process.

> As a core, I rarely get patches in without iterating at least once due
> to feedback, and I certainly don't land blueprints without scrutiny from
> others. To me, cores having their code and specs reviewed is not a
> "dance we do." Is that your main complaint? That you, a core, have to
> have your specs reviewed?
> 

Code - by all means. Be prepared to rewrite everything at least once (I
have on several occasions).

But for example refactoring stuff (that cores as maintainers do) just
makes no sense to go through this rigid process that as part of it's
output has artifacts for release planning. It's wasteful. Guess what
falls into this category? All the tech debt we've been raving about
previous cycle.

>> Next - why do priority features need an approved spec? We all know we
>> want to do it, just design it up on an etherpad/wiki/trello/whatever if
>> needed, write code and discuss there.
> 
> Because review of the design is important?
> 

I feel this discussions is not very productive at this point.

Of course documentation is good and review of design is important - no
one is questioning that!

I am complaining about the fact that we try to stick all of this into a
rigid process that also tries to help with 10 other things and thus
creating a massive bottleneck that ends up being a downward spiral.

N.