Open Stack

On 14 May 2015 at 21:55, Boris Pavlovic <boris at pavlovic.me> wrote:
> Robert,
>
>> So I think we should explicitly leave room for experimentation and
>> divergence, but also encourage a single common path - don't be
>> different to be different, be difference because it is important in
>> this specific case.
>
>
> First of all feature request are the same process as specs (in other
> projects)
> Difference is what we are expecting to get in spec and feature request (and
> auditory)
>
> By the way feature request in Rally were introduced far far before backlogs
> in other Keystone and Nova.
> It strange from me that those projects are reinventing working mechanism
> from other project=( and not just use it.

I am totally open standardising. Nova added backlogs after feedback
after the cross project session I ran at the last summit. It looked at
standardising the spec process between the different projects using
specs:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-crossproject-specs

The consensus in that session was for projects to adopt the "backlog"
approach, roughly similar to what keystone was using.

My original email to the operators linked to this web page:
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/backlog/index.html

It explains backlog specs as:
"
If you have a problem that needs solving, but you are not currently
planning on implementing it, this is the place we can store your
ideas.
These specifications have the problem description completed, but all
other sections are optional.
"

I like how it puts queued developer specs and operator requests
through the same process, to keep things simple.

Rally's feature requests and Nova's backlog look very similar to me
(except the name)? Is there something big I am missing here?

Thanks,
John