On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 08:01:31PM -0700, Jason Rist wrote: > On 01/27/2016 09:21 AM, Derek Higgins wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > We briefly discussed feature tracking in this weeks tripleo meeting. I > > would like to provide a way for downstream consumers (and ourselves) to > > track new features as they get implemented. The main things that came > > out of the discussion is that people liked the spec-lite process that > > the glance team are using. > > > > I'm proposing we would start to use the same process, essentially small > > features that don't warrant a blueprint would instead have a wishlist > > bug opened against them and get marked with the spec-lite tag. This bug > > could then be referenced in the commit messages. For larger features > > blueprints can still be used. I think the process documented by > > glance[1] is a good model to follow so go read that and see what you think > > > > The general feeling at the meeting was +1 to doing this[2] so I hope we > > can soon start enforcing it, assuming people are still happy to proceed? > > > > thanks, > > Derek. > > > > [1] > > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/glance/contributing/blueprints.html#glance-spec-lite > > > > [2] > > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2016/tripleo.2016-01-26-14.02.log.html > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > I guess my only thought would be to make the bug/rfe fairly descriptive > so we don't have to go tracking down whoever reported it for more > details. Maybe just some light rules about age and responsiveness so we > can quickly retire those bugs/rfes that people aren't really paying > attention to.
Agreed, I'd expect those cores triaging the spec-lite bugs to mark them incomplete if there's insufficient detail (although this isn't explicitly mentioned in the glance process[1], it seems well aligned with the existing bug workflow, so perhaps it's implicit). I'm not sure on the workflow for retiring RFE bugs - in general I'd expect RFE bugs to *not* be routinely retired just because they're not implemented , but they could be marked incomplete or invalid if they look obsolete or otherwise no longer relevant and allowed to expire that way. [1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/glance/contributing/blueprints.html#glance-spec-lite __________________________________________________________________________ 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
