On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 03:17:48PM -0400, David Kranz wrote: > While reviewing some specs I noticed that I had put myself down for more > Juno-2 work than is likely to be completed. I suspect this will happen > routinely with many folks. Also, assignees may change. This information is > not really part of the spec at all. Since we are still using blueprints to > actually track progress, I think it would be better to use the corresponding > fields in blueprints to make sure these values reflect reality on an ongoing > basis. >
TL;DR: While they're not part of the spec they are part of the proposal and I feel they have value when I'm reviewing a spec because that does influence my feedback. This was something we actually debated when we first added the spec template. I think that they both have value, and my view at the time and still is that we want both, in the spec review. The milestone target isn't a hard date but just a realistic time frame of how long you're expecting the work to take. I think the template even says something like targeted milestone of completion to reflect this. The target milestone is a part of the spec proposal and as a part of reviewing the spec I'm considering it to gauge what work the spec is going to entail. I don't thinking having to jump back and forth between the spec and the blueprint is a good way to do it. The date in the spec is definitely not binding I have 2 approved bps that I targeted for J-1 that I'm deferring one milestone. I think just tracking that in the BP after the spec is approved is fine. As for the assignees I think that's also fine to keep in the template mostly just because of the limitation of LP to only have a single assignee. It's also come up where people are drafting specs but don't plan to work on anything. So seeing in the proposal that someone has signed up to do the work I think is important. Just like the milestone I think we'll track this in LP after it's been approved. As someone who's reviewing the specs I look to see that someone has signed up to work before I approve it and how many people are working on it to gauge how involved implementing it will be. It probably makes some sense to add something to the template to indicate that once it's approved LP will contain the contribution history and the current assignee. -Matt Treinish
pgpcFkPC6nf3R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
