Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-05-12 01:44:06 -0400: > Hello all, > > Here are a few important announcements for the members involved in the > Glance community. > > > Priorities: > > ======= > > * The Glance priorities for Newton were discussed at the contributors' > meetup at summit. > > * There are a few items that were carried forward from Mitaka that are > still our priorities and there are a couple of items from the summit > that we have made a priority for reviews. > > Code review priority: > > * Import refactor
Is "Import refactor" what you're calling the work on the new API to get images into glance to solve the DefCore compatibility issue? Doug > > * Nova v1, v2 support > > * Image sharing changes > > * Documentation changes [1], [2] > > > The required attention from Glance team on Nova v1, v2 support is > minimal; the people who are actively involved should review the code and > the spec. > > > Everyone is encouraged to review the Import refactor work however, if > you do not know where to start you can join the informal syncs on > #openstack-glance Thursdays at 1330 UTC. If you do not see people > chatting you are more than encouraged to highlight the following irc > nicks: rosmaita, nikhil (to the very least) > > > Everyone is encouraged to review the Image sharing changes that are > currently being discussed. Although, the constructs are not going to > hamper the standard image workflows, the experiences of sharing may be > different after these changes. There will be subsequent changes to the > python-glanceclient for accommodating server changes. > > > Documentation changes are something that we must accommodate in this > cycle; thanks to the docs team the code draft was given to us. > Documentation liaison is working hard to get it in the right shape and a > couple more reviewers are to be assigned to review this change. We need > volunteers for the review work. > > > Process to be adopted in Newton: > > ========================== > > > Full specs: > > * For all newly introduced features, API Impacting changes and changes > that could either have an impact security or larger impact on operators > will need a full spec against the openstack/glance-specs repo. > > * For each spec, you need to create a corresponding blueprint in > launchpad [3] and indicate your intention to target that spec in the > newton milestone. You will want to be judicious on selecting the > milestone; if we see too many proposals for a particular milestone > glance-core team will have to selectively reject some of those or move > to a different milestone. Please set the url of the spec on your blueprint. > > * Please use the template for the full spec [4] and try to complete it > as much as possible. A spec that is missing some critical info is likely > to not get feedback. > > * Only blueprints by themselves will not be reviewed. You need a spec > associated with a blueprint to get the proposal reviewed. > > * The reviewers section [5] is very important for us to determine if the > team will have enough time to review your spec and code. This > information plays important role in planning and prioritize your spec. > Reach out to these core-reviewer nicks [6] on #openstack-glance channel > to see who is interested in assigning themselves to your spec. > > * Please make sure that each spec has the problem statement well > defined. The problem statement isn't a one liner that indicates -- it > would be nice to have this change, admins should do operations that user > can't, Glance should do so and so, etc. Problem statement should > elaborate your use case and explain what in Glance or OpenStack can be > improved, what exists currently, if any, why would it be beneficial to > make this change, how would the view of cloud change after this change, etc. > > * All full specs require +W from PTL/liaison > > > Lite specs: > > * All proposals that are expected to change the behavior of the system > significantly are required to have a lite-spec. > > * For a lite-spec you do not need a blueprint filed and you don't need > to target it to particular milestones. Glance would accept most > lite-specs until newton-3 unless a cross-project or another conflicting > change is a blocker. > > * Please make sure that each lite-spec has a well defined problem > statement. The problem statement is NOT a one liner that indicates -- it > would be nice to have this change, admins should do operations such > operations that user can't, Glance should do so and so, etc. Problem > statement should elaborate your use case and explain what in Glance or > OpenStack can be improved, what exists currently, if any, why would it > be beneficial to make this change, how would the view of cloud change > after this change, etc. > > * All lite specs should have at least two +2 (agreement from at least > two core reviewers). There is no need to wait on +W from the PTL but it > is highly encouraged to consult a liaison (module expert). > > * Lite specs can be merged irrespective of the spec freeze dates. > > > Important dates to remember: > > ======================= > > * June 2, R-18: newton-1 > > * June 17, R-16: Spec soft freeze, Glance mid-cycle (15th-17th) > (depending on attendance). If you've already booked travel contact me ASAP. > > * July 14, R-12: newton-2 > > * Jul 29, R-10: Spec hard freeze > > * Aug 23, R-6: final glance_store release > > * Aug 30, R-5: newton-3, lite-spec freeze, feature freeze, final > glanceclient release, soft string freeze > > * Sept 13, R-3: RC1, hard string freeze > > * Oct 7, R+0: Newton release > > > Spec owners and reviewers: > > ====================== > > * Currently there are 12 Glance core reviewers with some on hiatus, some > part time core reviewers (even less than 50%) and a few others with more > than 70% upstream time. > > * I have consolidated some information that we effectively have a little > more than 5 core reviewers with 100% upstream time. I hope to improve > that over the next couple of months if enough people are interested in > contributing upstream who have already expressed in reviewing more > Glance code. > > * So, while we would ideally be able to knock out 6 full specs in a > cycle (with each spec requiring at least two cores associated with it), > with current effectiveness we would like to target 2-3 specs depending > on the size of the changes. > > * All spec owners are highly encouraged to start a conversation with one > or two of the core-reviewers mentioned in [6] and see the possibility of > having 'champions' on those specs. > > * While the associated core reviewers are not required to review the > entire set of patches associated with that spec, they do however are a > point of contact, for representing Glance's point of view on the spec. > > * If you are looking to associate yourself as a reviewer to a spec and > do not know which one you should pick, feel free to reach out to me. > > * Also, if you are looking to make your mark and trying to work your way > into the core team, it will be highly appreciated if you assign yourself > to an important spec and help them drive the feature. > > > [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-May/008536.html > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312259 > > [3] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance > > [4] https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst > > [5] > https://github.com/openstack/glance-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst#reviewers > > [6] core-reviewer nicks: rosmaita, jokke_, flwang, flaper87, hemanthm, > sigmavirus24, kairat, kragniz, mfedosin, nikhil, sabari, mclaren > > [7] https://review.openstack.org/315347 > __________________________________________________________________________ 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
