Open Stack

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:12:47 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 3/22/2018 2:59 PM, melanie witt wrote:
>> And (MHO) I'm not sure we need help in reviewing more specs.
> 
> I wholly disagree here. If you're on the core team, or want to be on the
> core team, you should be reviewing specs, because those are the things
> that lay out the high level design and thinking about what eventually
> comes out in the code.
> 
> If there are core team members that aren't involved in the specs review
> process, I certainly hope they are going back to do their homework on
> the agreed-to design *before* digging into code review.
> 
> There are some specs that are pretty simple/mechanical changes, but
> there are others that take quite a bit of time ironing out details and
> edge cases, and sometimes changes in the initial design, such that it's
> important to have that context in mind when you're reviewing the code.
> 
> There have been plenty of times I've gone through a lengthy spec review
> process and then during implementation review I find things and say,
> "wait, in the spec we said...". If you're not involved in both, you're
> likely to miss those things.
> 
> At the least it gets the context in your head so you're not starting
> from scratch.
> 
> Maybe you were just saying, "we don't need to review more specs because
> we already have enough approved specs to get through the related code
> changes", and that's fair, I've said the same before, but those are two
> different things.

Yes, the last paragraph is what I meant. I said that in response to the 
idea of putting unapproved specs into the runways right now to get 
review on them. I was saying we probably already have so many approved 
specs that we're at risk of not being able to review and merge all of 
the related code in time. (At this moment there are 41 blueprints 
approved for Rocky). So I'm not sure we need to be getting more focus on 
reviewing more specs so we can approve more of them than we already have 
at this point, IMHO.

-melanie