[openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder to move implemented nova specs from mitaka
mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri Mar 18 14:20:23 UTC 2016
On 3/18/2016 5:46 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> Matt Riedemann <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 03/16/2016 09:49:06
>> From: Matt Riedemann <mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: 03/16/2016 09:50 PM
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder to move implemented nova
>> specs from mitaka
>> Specs are proposed to the 'approved' subdirectory and when they are
>> completely implemented in launchpad (the blueprint status is
>> 'Implemented'), we should move the spec from the 'approved' subdirectory
>> to the 'implemented' subdirectory in the nova-specs repo.
>> For example:
>> These are the mitaka series blueprints from launchpad:
>> If anyone is really daring they could go through and move all of the
>> implemented ones in a single change.
>> Matt Riedemann
> Is there a best practice how to handle a partially implemented bp (with
> spec file)? For example  needs additional effort during Newton to
> finish it.
>  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/centralize-config-options
> Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
John was just telling me about this yesterday. I guess one thing we can
do is add a "(partial)" suffix to the title and mark the blueprint
complete for mitaka, and then the idea is to create a new blueprint for
newton for continuing the work, e.g. centralize-config-options-newton.
The idea being we show that something was completed in mitaka when
you're looking at blueprints in launchpad for mitaka.
I'm generally OK with that approach, the thing I don't really like is
when we have to re-propose specs and/or if there are dependent
blueprints in launchpad. Because creating the new blueprint means you
have to update the link in the spec when re-proposing it and you need to
update all of the dependent specs in launchpad for the new newton spec.
Maybe it's not a big deal, I can see benefits to either approach.
Personally I don't like to consider a blueprint complete until it's
actually complete, like has been the case with some of the cells v2
blueprints we've re-proposed for newton.
With long cleanup efforts like objects and config options though, I can
see how having release-specific blueprints is good.
Markus, so to answer your original question, :), I'd probably mark the
existing bp as complete for mitaka and create a new
More information about the OpenStack-dev