Open Stack

Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe <ed at leafe.com
> <mailto:ed at leafe.com>> wrote:
>> [...] 
>> Other emails have touched on the biggest disconnect in the process: that
>> an approved spec magically becomes unapproved on a particular calendar
>> date. This makes no sense whatsoever. If it was a good idea yesterday,
>> it will almost always be a good idea tomorrow.
>  
> I don' think this is a accurate summary of the status quo.
> 
> We currently have the fast track process, where if a spec was previously
> approved we will quickly re-approve it. (I do a git diff between the
> previous version and make sure the diff is trivial). By my count in
> liberty we successfully used this procedure around 14 times. So yes
> things do magically become unapproved on a somewhat random date, but I
> don't think this is realistically a major pain point. (Side note we were
> able to approve a lot of those specs before the summit).
> 
> Secondly nova is moves fast. For example in Kilo we had: 4752 files
> changed, 299,275 insertions(+), 309,689 deletions(-) [0].  What is
> amazing about this is nova kilo only had 251,965 lines [1].  So specs
> that we approved 6 months ago are often not valid anymore, I have seen
> this happen time and time again. 

Could you give specific examples ? Tying the specs to a specific cycle
results in lots of overhead and extra pain. I understand it's meant to
ensure that 6-month-old specs are still current, but the benefits may
not outweigh the huge drawbacks. Is there any horror story that this
process actually prevented ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)