Open Stack

Hi Stefano,

Thanks so much for your detailed answer, I finally know the reason why those patches are not reviewed in this cycle. 
Actually, this BP (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata) is created very
early around Nov. 2014, and there is BP even earlier before that
(https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-volume-image-metadata) which is created around May 2014.

Maybe they just believe this is not such important and not worth to take time to review. Hope those patches could be reviewed in
'L'.

Best Regards,
Dave Chen


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stefano at openstack.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:14 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP approval
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 02:22 +0000, Chen, Wei D wrote:
> > I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is
> > merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of them
> > (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory for
> > getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to confirm with
> > that?
> 
> Since Cinder uses BP+spec, the process is described on the wiki page:
> 
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Spec_.2B_Blueprints_lifecycle
> 
> If it helps, I'd consider the spec and the blueprint as "one" element made of two pieces. The spec needs to be "approved" and
> its corresponding blueprint needs to be approved and have a priority, deadline/milestone assigned. If any of these attributes
> is missing, the feature is not going to be reviewed.
> 
> Blueprints and their attributes 'priority' and 'milestone' are used to track the status of the release. The reviewers use BPs to
> identify the code that they need to review. For example,
> https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/kilo-3
> 
> I've tried to piece the history of your experience from the links you
> provided:
> 
> - you submitted the spec in November 2014
> - the spec was approved on Jan 6, 2015 (from
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/)
> - the spec references two blueprints, one for Cinder, one of Cinder-client; both BPs were created at the end of February
> - none of the BP have a milestone set
> - you submitted code related to the approved spec between Jan 6 and today
> 
> I have the impression that you may have missed a step in the BP+spec process. I have tried to find the documentation for this
> process myself and I had a hard time, too.
> 
> > Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3],
> > only PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the acceptable
> > procedure for the coming 'L'.
> 
> The project team leaders (PTL) are ultimately responsible to set the priorities, although the decision is always a consensual
> decision of the core teams.
> 
> Have you considered joining OpenStack Upstream Training?
> https://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/02/openstack-upstream-training-in-vancouver/
> 
> Cheers,
> stef
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150312/4f1fdd83/attachment.bin>