It is better that we can have some diagram workflow just like Gerrit_Workflow <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow> to show the new process.
Thanks! 2014-03-21 4:23 GMT+08:00 Dolph Mathews <dolph.math...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com>wrote: > >> We recently discussed the idea of using gerrit to review blueprint >> specifications [1]. There was a lot of support for the idea so we have >> proceeded with putting this together before the start of the Juno >> development cycle. >> >> We now have a new project set up, openstack/nova-specs. You submit >> changes to it just like any other project in gerrit. Find the README >> and a template for specifications here: >> >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/README.rst >> >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/template.rst > > > This is great! This is the same basic process we've used for API-impacting > changes in keystone and it has worked really well for us, and we're eager > to adopt the same thing on a more general level. > > The process seems overly complicated to me, however. As a blueprint > proposer, I find it odd that I have to propose my blueprint as part of > approved/ -- why not just have a single directory to file things away that > have been implemented? Is it even necessary to preserve them? (why not just > git rm when implemented?) Gerrit already provides a permalink (to the > review). > > >> >> >> The blueprint process wiki page has also been updated to reflect that we >> will be using this for Nova: >> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Nova >> >> Note that *all* Juno blueprints, including ones that were previously >> approved, must go through this new process. This will help ensure that >> blueprints previously approved still make sense, as well as ensure that >> all Juno specs follow a more complete and consistent format. >> >> Before the flood of spec reviews start, we would really like to get >> feedback on the content of the spec template. It includes things like >> "deployer impact" which could use more input. Feel free to provide >> feedback on list, or just suggest updates via proposed changes in gerrit. >> >> I suspect this process to evolve a bit throughout Juno, but I'm very >> excited about the positive impact it is likely to have on our overall >> result. >> >> Thanks! >> >> [1] >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html >> >> -- >> Russell Bryant >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Thanks, Jay
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
