Joe Gordon wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com > <mailto:e...@leafe.com>> wrote: >> [...] >> Other emails have touched on the biggest disconnect in the process: that >> an approved spec magically becomes unapproved on a particular calendar >> date. This makes no sense whatsoever. If it was a good idea yesterday, >> it will almost always be a good idea tomorrow. > > I don' think this is a accurate summary of the status quo. > > We currently have the fast track process, where if a spec was previously > approved we will quickly re-approve it. (I do a git diff between the > previous version and make sure the diff is trivial). By my count in > liberty we successfully used this procedure around 14 times. So yes > things do magically become unapproved on a somewhat random date, but I > don't think this is realistically a major pain point. (Side note we were > able to approve a lot of those specs before the summit). > > Secondly nova is moves fast. For example in Kilo we had: 4752 files > changed, 299,275 insertions(+), 309,689 deletions(-) [0]. What is > amazing about this is nova kilo only had 251,965 lines [1]. So specs > that we approved 6 months ago are often not valid anymore, I have seen > this happen time and time again.
Could you give specific examples ? Tying the specs to a specific cycle results in lots of overhead and extra pain. I understand it's meant to ensure that 6-month-old specs are still current, but the benefits may not outweigh the huge drawbacks. Is there any horror story that this process actually prevented ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __________________________________________________________________________ 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
