On Monday, May 4, 2015, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/4/2015 11:12 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote: > >> Hi Matt, >> >> We originally proposed a Juno spec for this blueprint, but it got >> postponed to Kilo where it has been approved without a spec together with >> other hypervisor specific blueprints (the so called “trivial” case). >> >> The BP itself is completed and marked accordingly on launchpad. >> >> Patches referenced in the BP: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103945/ >> Abandoned: Juno specs. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107177/ >> Merged >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107185/ >> Merged >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137429/ >> Abandoned: Acording to the previous discussions on IRC, this commit is no >> longer necessary. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137429/ >> Abandoned: Acording to the previous discussions on IRC, this commit is no >> longer necessary. >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145268/ >> Abandoned, due to sqlalchemy model limitations >> >> >> >> On 04 May 2015, at 18:41, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> This spec was never approved [1] but the code was merged in Kilo [2]. >>> >>> The blueprint is marked complete in launchpad [3] and it's referenced as >>> a new feature in the hyper-v driver in the kilo release notes [4], but >>> there is no spec published for consumers that detail the feature [5]. Also, >>> the spec mentioned doc impacts which I have to assume weren't made, and >>> there were abandoned patches [6] tied to the blueprint, so is this >>> half-baked or not? Are we missing information in the kilo release notes? >>> >>> How do we retroactively approve a spec so it's published to >>> specs.openstack.org for posterity when obviously our review process >>> broke down? >>> >>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103945/ >>> [2] >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/hyper-v-generation-2-vms,n,z >>> [3] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyper-v-generation-2-vms >>> [4] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Kilo#Hyper-V >>> [5] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/ >>> [6] >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:abandoned+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/hyper-v-generation-2-vms,n,z >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Matt Riedemann >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > OK, but this doesn't answer all of the questions. > > 1. Are there doc impacts from the spec that need to be in the kilo release > notes? For example, the spec says: > > "The Nova driver documentation should include an entry about this topic > including when to use and when not to use generation 2 VMs. A note on the > relevant Glance image property should be added as well." > > I don't see any of that in the kilo release notes. They were generated from UpgradeImpact messages in commits, I guess we missed this one here, let's add that, thank you. > > 2. If we have a feature merged, we should have something in > specs.openstack.org for operators to go back to reference rather than dig > through ugly launchpad whiteboards or incomplete gerrit reviews where what > was merged might differ from what was originally proposed in the spec in > Juno. Matt, appreciate you pushing on this. Happy to approve moving that spec to kilo so the docs are easier. But you do hit on a general issue with no tracking for spec-less blueprints. Maybe putting a stub spec in to document all the blueprint less specs would help here? > > 3. Is the Hyper-V CI now testing with gen-2 images? Good question. Also does it still test some gen-1 too? Thanks, John > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt Riedemann > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
