Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org> wrote on 01/11/2016 01:55:21 PM: > From: Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: 01/11/2016 01:55 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno > > On 11/01/16 20:08, Sean Dague wrote: > > On 01/10/2016 11:31 PM, Lana Brindley wrote: > > <snip> > >> Wow. That'll make the release notes process painful this round ... o.O > > > > Hmmm. In my mind it will make it a lot easier. In the past we end up > > getting to the release and sit around and go "hmmm, what did we change > > in the last 6 months that people care about?" And forget 90% of it. This > > does the work up front. We can then just provide a final edit and > > summary of highlights, and we're done. > > > > Having spoke with ops over the years, no one is going to be upset if we > > tell them all the changes that might impact them. > > > >> > >> > >>> Would love it to be the case, but I don't think that's correct. Or > if it's supposed to be correct, it hasn't been well communicated :) > >> > >>> Few random reviews from the DocImpact queue that didn't have relnotes: > >> > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180202/ > > > > I can only speak on the Nova change (as that's a team I review for). > > You'll see this comment in there - > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180202/31//COMMIT_MSG - a relnote was > > expected for the patch series. Whether or not it managed to slip > > through, I don't know. > > Confirmed - no relnotes for this. > > > > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/249814/ > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/250818/ > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/230983/ > >> > >>> Didn't really look closely into these - would encourage someone > with a bit more time to do so, but the fact that these were so trivial > to eke out means that "nearly all" is almost certainly a bad assumption. > >> > >> > >> My experience would indicate that many, many DocImpact bugs are > really not worthy of relnotes. > > > > Can you provide some references? Again, my imagination doesn't really > > come up with a lot of Nova changes that would be valid DocImpact but > > wouldn't need a reno. I can see bugs filed against Docs explicitly > > because there is a mismatch. > > Since you wanted to focus only on nova, here's some more DocImpact > reviews that did not have relnotes. Again, I basically haven't read > these - if someone wanted to do this properly, much appreciated. > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165750/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184153/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/237643/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180202/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242213/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224500/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147516/
At a short glance I would say: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165750/ config option needs to be set for backwards compatible change => should have reno file https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184153/ enables snapshot for parallels. HypervisorSupportMatrix.ini is already altered within the change => no further action necessary https://review.openstack.org/#/c/237643/ Removes a deprecated config option => should have reno file https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180202/ Enhances flavor extra specs => to this day I don't know how they get documented and I'm clueless about a further action https://review.openstack.org/#/c/242213/ changes default values of the policy.json => should have reno file https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224500/ Does the doc change already in the change (config option help) => no further action necessary https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147516/ introduces new config options => should have reno file Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) __________________________________________________________________________ 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