[openstack-dev] [TripleO] spec-lite process for tripleo
shardy at redhat.com
Thu Jan 28 09:10:47 UTC 2016
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 08:01:31PM -0700, Jason Rist wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 09:21 AM, Derek Higgins wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > We briefly discussed feature tracking in this weeks tripleo meeting. I
> > would like to provide a way for downstream consumers (and ourselves) to
> > track new features as they get implemented. The main things that came
> > out of the discussion is that people liked the spec-lite process that
> > the glance team are using.
> > I'm proposing we would start to use the same process, essentially small
> > features that don't warrant a blueprint would instead have a wishlist
> > bug opened against them and get marked with the spec-lite tag. This bug
> > could then be referenced in the commit messages. For larger features
> > blueprints can still be used. I think the process documented by
> > glance is a good model to follow so go read that and see what you think
> > The general feeling at the meeting was +1 to doing this so I hope we
> > can soon start enforcing it, assuming people are still happy to proceed?
> > thanks,
> > Derek.
> > 
> > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/glance/contributing/blueprints.html#glance-spec-lite
> > 
> > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2016/tripleo.2016-01-26-14.02.log.html
> > __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> I guess my only thought would be to make the bug/rfe fairly descriptive
> so we don't have to go tracking down whoever reported it for more
> details. Maybe just some light rules about age and responsiveness so we
> can quickly retire those bugs/rfes that people aren't really paying
> attention to.
Agreed, I'd expect those cores triaging the spec-lite bugs to mark them
incomplete if there's insufficient detail (although this isn't explicitly
mentioned in the glance process, it seems well aligned with the existing
bug workflow, so perhaps it's implicit).
I'm not sure on the workflow for retiring RFE bugs - in general I'd expect
RFE bugs to *not* be routinely retired just because they're not implemented
, but they could be marked incomplete or invalid if they look obsolete or
otherwise no longer relevant and allowed to expire that way.
More information about the OpenStack-dev