On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Devananda van der Veen <devananda....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The discussion of blueprint review has come up recently for several reasons, > not the least of which is that I haven't yet reviewed many of the blueprints > that have been filed recently. > > My biggest issue with launchpad blueprints is that they do not provide a > usable interface for design iteration prior to writing code. Between the > "whiteboard" section, wikis, and etherpads, we have muddled through a few > designs (namely cinder and ceilometer integration) with accuracy, but the > vast majority of BPs are basically reviewed after they're implemented. This > seems to be a widespread objection to launchpad blueprints within the > OpenStack community, which others are trying to solve. Having now looked at > what Nova is doing with the nova-specs repo, and considering that TripleO is > also moving to that format for blueprint submission, and considering that we > have a very good "review things in gerrit" culture in the Ironic community > already, I think it would be a very positive change. > > For reference, here is the Nova discussion thread: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html > > and the specs repo BP template: > https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst > > So, I would like us to begin using this development process over the course > of Juno. We have a lot of BPs up right now that are light on details, and, > rather than iterate on each of them in launchpad, I would like to propose > that: > * we create an ironic-specs repo, based on Nova's format, before the summit > * I will begin reviewing BPs leading up to the summit, focusing on features > that were originally targeted to Icehouse and didn't make it, or are > obviously achievable for J1 > * we'll probably discuss blueprints and milestones at the summit, and will > probably adjust targets > * after the summit, for any BP not targeted to J1, we require blueprint > proposals to go through the spec review process before merging any > associated code. > > Cores and interested parties, please reply to this thread with your > opinions. > I think this is a great idea Devananda. The Neutron community has moved to this model for Juno as well, and people have been very positive so far.
Thanks, Kyle > -- > Devananda > > _______________________________________________ > 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
