On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote: > On 06/24/2015 02:33 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
[. . .] > > I agree completely. The nicely rendered feature docs which is a > > byproduct of the specs process in gerrit is a great part of it. So when > > someone is trying to use a new feature or trying to fix a bug in said > > feature 1-2 years later and trying to understand the big picture idea, > > they can refer to the original design spec - assuming it was accurate at > > the time that the code was actually merged. Like you said, it's > > important to keep the specs up to date based on what was actually > > approved in the code. > > Of course documentation is good. Make that kind of docs a requirement > for merging a feature, by all means. > > But the approval process we have now is just backwards. It's only result > is preventing useful work getting done. > > In addition to what Daniel mentioned elsewhere: > > Why do cores need approved specs for example - and indeed for many of us > - it's just a dance we do. I refuse to believe that a core can be > trusted to approve patches but not to write any code other than a bugfix > without a written document explaining themselves, and then have a yet > more exclusive group of super cores approve that. It makes no sense. This is one of the _baffling_ aspects -- that a so-called "super core" has to approve specs with *no* obvious valid reasons. As Jay Pipes mentioned once, this indeed seems like a vestigial remnant from old times. FWIW, I agree with others on this thread, Nova should get rid of this specific senseless non-process. At least a couple of cycles ago. [Snip, some sensible commentary.] -- /kashyap __________________________________________________________________________ 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
