On 5/12/16 1:51 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > 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
Yes, we call it that as per the (original) spec review title. > >> * 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 -- Thanks, Nikhil
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
