Open Stack

On Monday, May 4, 2015, Matt Riedemann <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.


They were generated from UpgradeImpact messages in commits, I guess we
missed this one here, let's add that, thank you.


>
> 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.


Matt, appreciate you pushing on this.

Happy to approve moving that spec to kilo so the docs are easier.

But you do hit on a general issue with no tracking for spec-less
blueprints. Maybe putting a stub spec in to document all the blueprint less
specs would help here?


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


Good question. Also does it still test some gen-1 too?

Thanks,
John



>
> --
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150505/dd181e7e/attachment.html>