Open Stack

On 19 November 2015 at 08:39, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy <
pshchelokovskyy at mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> +1 for specs in general, big features require a proper review and
> discussion for which LP is not a good choice.
>
> +1 for not requiring a spec for small features, LP BP is enough for just
> time/release tracking, but of course cores can request a proper spec to be
> proposed if feeling feature is worth discussion.
>
> 0 for using ironic-specs. It will increase visibility to wider ironic
> community, sure. But it seems ironic-inspector has to decide how integrated
> it should be with the other ironic project infra pieces as well. For
> example, there is now a patch on review to build a proper sphinx docs for
> ironic-inspector. Should those then be published and where? Should
> ironic-inspector have own doc site e.g.
> http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic-inspector/, or somehow be
> incorporated in ironic doc site? IMO decision on specs and docs should be
> consistent.
>
>>

I tend to agree with Pavlo. I think it will be more consistent with the
ironic-inspector docs, bugs, launchpad if the specs are in their own
ironic-inspector-specs directory. Also, just looking at
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/, it isn't obvious to me
where/how to reorganize it to include ironic-inspector. And then we'd
probably want to address how to incorporate other projects eg IPA, bifrost
specs as well, which I'd rather not have to think about. :-)

--ruby
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151123/b6be2938/attachment.html>