Completely agree. We're spending too much time discussing features after they're implemented, which makes contribution more difficult for everyone. Forcing an explicit design+review process, using the same tools as we use for coding+review seems like a great idea. If it doesn't work we can iterate.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
