Open Stack

On 5/4/2015 11:12 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> We originally proposed a Juno spec for this blueprint, but it got postponed to Kilo where it has been approved without a spec together with other hypervisor specific blueprints (the so called “trivial” case).
>
> The BP itself is completed and marked accordingly on launchpad.
>
> Patches referenced in the BP:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103945/
> Abandoned: Juno specs.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107177/
> Merged
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107185/
> Merged
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137429/
> Abandoned: Acording to the previous discussions on IRC, this commit is no longer necessary.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137429/
> Abandoned: Acording to the previous discussions on IRC, this commit is no longer necessary.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145268/
> Abandoned, due to sqlalchemy model limitations
>
>
>
>> On 04 May 2015, at 18:41, Matt Riedemann <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> This spec was never approved [1] but the code was merged in Kilo [2].
>>
>> The blueprint is marked complete in launchpad [3] and it's referenced as a new feature in the hyper-v driver in the kilo release notes [4], but there is no spec published for consumers that detail the feature [5]. Also, the spec mentioned doc impacts which I have to assume weren't made, and there were abandoned patches [6] tied to the blueprint, so is this half-baked or not?  Are we missing information in the kilo release notes?
>>
>> How do we retroactively approve a spec so it's published to specs.openstack.org for posterity when obviously our review process broke down?
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103945/
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/hyper-v-generation-2-vms,n,z
>> [3] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyper-v-generation-2-vms
>> [4] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Kilo#Hyper-V
>> [5] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/
>> [6] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:abandoned+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/hyper-v-generation-2-vms,n,z
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Matt Riedemann
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

OK, but this doesn't answer all of the questions.

1. Are there doc impacts from the spec that need to be in the kilo 
release notes?  For example, the spec says:

"The Nova driver documentation should include an entry about this topic
including when to use and when not to use generation 2 VMs. A note on 
the relevant Glance image property should be added as well."

I don't see any of that in the kilo release notes.

2. If we have a feature merged, we should have something in 
specs.openstack.org for operators to go back to reference rather than 
dig through ugly launchpad whiteboards or incomplete gerrit reviews 
where what was merged might differ from what was originally proposed in 
the spec in Juno.

3. Is the Hyper-V CI now testing with gen-2 images?

-- 

Thanks,

Matt Riedemann