Open Stack

On 5/12/16 1:51 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-05-12 01:44:06 -0400:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Here are a few important announcements for the members involved in the
>> Glance community.
>>
>>
>> Priorities:
>>
>> =======
>>
>> * The Glance priorities for Newton were discussed at the contributors'
>> meetup at summit.
>>
>> * There are a few items that were carried forward from Mitaka that are
>> still our priorities and there are a couple of items from the summit
>> that we have made a priority for reviews.
>>
>> Code review priority:
>>
>> * Import refactor
> Is "Import refactor" what you're calling the work on the new API to get
> images into glance to solve the DefCore compatibility issue?
>
> Doug


Yes, we call it that as per the (original) spec review title.


>
>> * Nova v1, v2 support
>>
>> * Image sharing changes
>>
>> * Documentation changes [1], [2]
>>
>>
>> The required attention from Glance team on Nova v1, v2 support is
>> minimal; the people who are actively involved should review the code and
>> the spec.
>>
>>
>> Everyone is encouraged to review the Import refactor work however, if
>> you do not know where to start you can join the informal syncs on
>> #openstack-glance Thursdays at 1330 UTC. If you do not see people
>> chatting you are more than encouraged to highlight the following irc
>> nicks: rosmaita, nikhil (to the very least)
>>
>>
>> Everyone is encouraged to review the Image sharing changes that are
>> currently being discussed. Although, the constructs are not going to
>> hamper the standard image workflows, the experiences of sharing may be
>> different after these changes. There will be subsequent changes to the
>> python-glanceclient for accommodating server changes.
>>
>>
>> Documentation changes are something that we must accommodate in this
>> cycle; thanks to the docs team the code draft was given to us.
>> Documentation liaison is working hard to get it in the right shape and a
>> couple more reviewers are to be assigned to review this change. We need
>> volunteers for the review work.
>>
>>
>> Process to be adopted in Newton:
>>
>> ==========================
>>
>>
>> Full specs:
>>
>> * For all newly introduced features, API Impacting changes and changes
>> that could either have an impact security or larger impact on operators
>> will need a full spec against the openstack/glance-specs repo.
>>
>> * For each spec, you need to create a corresponding blueprint in
>> launchpad [3] and indicate your intention to target that spec in the
>> newton milestone. You will want to be judicious on selecting the
>> milestone; if we see too many proposals for a particular milestone
>> glance-core team will have to selectively reject some of those or move
>> to a different milestone. Please set the url of the spec on your blueprint.
>>
>> * Please use the template for the full spec [4] and try to complete it
>> as much as possible. A spec that is missing some critical info is likely
>> to not get feedback.
>>
>> * Only blueprints by themselves will not be reviewed. You need a spec
>> associated with a blueprint to get the proposal reviewed.
>>
>> * The reviewers section [5] is very important for us to determine if the
>> team will have enough time to review your spec and code. This
>> information plays important role in planning and prioritize your spec.
>> Reach out to these core-reviewer nicks [6] on #openstack-glance channel
>> to see who is interested in assigning themselves to your spec.
>>
>> * Please make sure that each spec has the problem statement well
>> defined. The problem statement isn't a one liner that indicates -- it
>> would be nice to have this change, admins should do operations that user
>> can't, Glance should do so and so, etc. Problem statement should
>> elaborate your use case and explain what in Glance or OpenStack can be
>> improved, what exists currently, if any, why would it be beneficial to
>> make this change, how would the view of cloud change after this change, etc.
>>
>> * All full specs require +W from PTL/liaison
>>
>>
>> Lite specs:
>>
>> * All proposals that are expected to change the behavior of the system
>> significantly are required to have a lite-spec.
>>
>> * For a lite-spec you do not need a blueprint filed and you don't need
>> to target it to particular milestones. Glance would accept most
>> lite-specs until newton-3 unless a cross-project or another conflicting
>> change is a blocker.
>>
>> * Please make sure that each lite-spec has a well defined problem
>> statement. The problem statement is NOT a one liner that indicates -- it
>> would be nice to have this change, admins should do operations such
>> operations that user can't, Glance should do so and so, etc. Problem
>> statement should elaborate your use case and explain what in Glance or
>> OpenStack can be improved, what exists currently, if any, why would it
>> be beneficial to make this change, how would the view of cloud change
>> after this change, etc.
>>
>> * All lite specs should have at least two +2 (agreement from at least
>> two core reviewers). There is no need to wait on +W from the PTL but it
>> is highly encouraged to consult a liaison (module expert).
>>
>> * Lite specs can be merged irrespective of the spec freeze dates.
>>
>>
>> Important dates to remember:
>>
>> =======================
>>
>> * June 2, R-18: newton-1
>>
>> * June 17, R-16: Spec soft freeze, Glance mid-cycle (15th-17th)
>> (depending on attendance). If you've already booked travel contact me ASAP.
>>
>> * July 14, R-12: newton-2
>>
>> * Jul 29, R-10: Spec hard freeze
>>
>> * Aug 23, R-6: final glance_store release
>>
>> * Aug 30, R-5: newton-3, lite-spec freeze, feature freeze, final
>> glanceclient release, soft string freeze
>>
>> * Sept 13, R-3: RC1, hard string freeze
>>
>> * Oct 7, R+0: Newton release
>>
>>
>> Spec owners and reviewers:
>>
>> ======================
>>
>> * Currently there are 12 Glance core reviewers with some on hiatus, some
>> part time core reviewers (even less than 50%) and a few others with more
>> than 70% upstream time.
>>
>> * I have consolidated some information that we effectively have a little
>> more than 5 core reviewers with 100% upstream time. I hope to improve
>> that over the next couple of months if enough people are interested in
>> contributing upstream who have already expressed in reviewing more
>> Glance code.
>>
>> * So, while we would ideally be able to knock out 6 full specs in a
>> cycle (with each spec requiring at least two cores associated with it),
>> with current effectiveness we would like to target 2-3 specs depending
>> on the size of the changes.
>>
>> * All spec owners are highly encouraged to start a conversation with one
>> or two of the core-reviewers mentioned in [6] and see the possibility of
>> having 'champions' on those specs.
>>
>> * While the associated core reviewers are not required to review the
>> entire set of patches associated with that spec, they do however are a
>> point of contact, for representing Glance's point of view on the spec.
>>
>> * If you are looking to associate yourself as a reviewer to a spec and
>> do not know which one you should pick, feel free to reach out to me.
>>
>> * Also, if you are looking to make your mark and trying to work your way
>> into the core team, it will be highly appreciated if you assign yourself
>> to an important spec and help them drive the feature.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-May/008536.html
>>
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312259
>>
>> [3] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance
>>
>> [4] https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst
>>
>> [5]
>> https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst#reviewers
>>
>> [6] core-reviewer nicks: rosmaita, jokke_, flwang, flaper87, hemanthm,
>> sigmavirus24, kairat, kragniz, mfedosin, nikhil, sabari, mclaren
>>
>> [7] https://review.openstack.org/315347
>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 

Thanks,
Nikhil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160512/36b4eff3/attachment.html>