On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:59:32PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote: [...]
> The bug process was very light weight for an operator who found > something they would like enhanced. It could be done through the web > and did not require git/gerrit knowledge. I went through the process > for a change: > > - Reported a bug for the need to add an L2 cache size option for QEMU > (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1509304) closed as invalid since > this was a feature request - When this was closed, I followed the > process and submitted a spec > (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/qcow2-l2-cache-size-configuration) > > It was not clear how to proceed from here for me. Given the feature request is fairly self-contained (so, it wouldn't warrant a specification), the next step would be someone feeling motivated enough to submit a patch to implement it. > The risk I see is that we are missing input to the development process > in view of the complexity of submitting those requirements. Clearly, > setting the bar too low means that there is no clear requirement > statement etc. However, I think the combination of tools and > assumption of knowledge of the process means that we are missing the > opportunity for good quality input. >From an Operator's perspective, I think your concern seems reasonable: having a friction-free way to provide input (like an RFE bug) vs. having the process knowledge (Spec-less Blueprint vs. Blueprint with Spec). But, given Markus' stats about 'Wishlist' implementation, that category doesn't seem to be quite effective. [...] -- /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
