On 2014-03-06 18:16, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:05:15 -0500
Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote:
In today's Nova meeting a new thought occurred. We already have Gerrit
which is good for reviewing things. It gives you detailed commenting
abilities, voting, and history. Instead of attempting (and usually
failing) on doing blueprint review in launchpad (or launchpad + an
etherpad, or launchpad + a wiki page) we could do something like
follows:
1. create bad blueprint
2. create gerrit review with detailed proposal on the blueprint
3. iterate in gerrit working towards blueprint approval
4. once approved copy back the approved text into the blueprint (which
should now be sufficiently detailed)
+1. I think this could really help avoid wasted work for API related
changes in particular.
Just wondering if we need step 4 - or if the blueprint text should
always just link to either the unapproved patch for the text in
gerrit, or the text in repository once it's approved. Updates to
proposal would be proposed through the same process.
Chris
It makes sense to me to have whatever was approved in Gerrit be the
canonical version. Copy-pasting back to launchpad seems error prone.
IIRC, blueprints have a field for a link to the spec, so maybe we should
just link to the Gerrit content with that?
It would be nice to have a bot that can update bp status and such when a
change is approved in Gerrit, but that's something that can happen in
the future.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
