[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Ocata specs

Zane Bitter zbitter at redhat.com
Tue Nov 1 21:46:48 UTC 2016

On 01/11/16 15:13, James Slagle wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Emilien Macchi <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> TripleO (like some other projects in OpenStack) have not always done
>> good job in merging specs on time during a cycle.
>> I would like to make progress on this topic and for that, I propose we
>> set a deadline to get a spec approved for Ocata release.
>> This deadline would be Ocata-1 which is week of November 14th.
>> So if you have a specs under review, please make sure it's well
>> communicated to our team (IRC, mailing-list, etc); comments are
>> addressed.
>> Also, I would ask our team to spend some time to review them when they
>> have time. Here is the link:
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs+status:open
> Given that we don't always require specs, should we make the same
> deadline for blueprints to get approved for Ocata as well?
> In fact, we haven't even always required blueprints for all features.
> In order to avoid any surprise FFE's towards the end of the cycle, I
> think it might be wise to start doing so. The overhead of creating a
> blueprint is very small, and it actually works to the implementer's
> advantage as it helps to focus review attention at the various
> milestones.
> So, we could say:
> - All features require a blueprint
> - They may require a spec if we need to reach concensus about the feature first
> - All Blueprints and Specs for Ocata not approved by November 14th
> will be deferred to Pike.
> Given we reviewed all the blueprints at the summit, and discussed all
> the features we plan to implement for Ocata, I think it would be
> reasonable to go with the above. However, 'm interested in any
> feedback or if anyone feels that requiring a blueprint for features is
> undesirable.

The blueprint interface in Launchpad is kind of horrible for our 
purposes (too many irrelevant fields to fill out). For features that 
aren't big/controversial enough to require a spec, some projects have 
adopted a 'spec-lite' process. Basically you raise a *bug* in Launchpad, 
give it 'Wishlist' priority and tag it with 'spec-lite'.

Sometimes a blueprint is the right answer (e.g. if it's high-priority 
and you want to track it), but it's good to have the option.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list