On 1 Nov 2016, at 14:46, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 01/11/16 15:13, James Slagle wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> TripleO (like some other projects in OpenStack) have not always done >>> good job in merging specs on time during a cycle. >>> I would like to make progress on this topic and for that, I propose we >>> set a deadline to get a spec approved for Ocata release. >>> This deadline would be Ocata-1 which is week of November 14th. >>> >>> So if you have a specs under review, please make sure it's well >>> communicated to our team (IRC, mailing-list, etc); comments are >>> addressed. >>> >>> Also, I would ask our team to spend some time to review them when they >>> have time. Here is the link: >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs+status:open >> >> Given that we don't always require specs, should we make the same >> deadline for blueprints to get approved for Ocata as well? >> >> In fact, we haven't even always required blueprints for all features. >> In order to avoid any surprise FFE's towards the end of the cycle, I >> think it might be wise to start doing so. The overhead of creating a >> blueprint is very small, and it actually works to the implementer's >> advantage as it helps to focus review attention at the various >> milestones. >> >> So, we could say: >> - All features require a blueprint >> - They may require a spec if we need to reach concensus about the feature >> first >> - All Blueprints and Specs for Ocata not approved by November 14th >> will be deferred to Pike. >> >> Given we reviewed all the blueprints at the summit, and discussed all >> the features we plan to implement for Ocata, I think it would be >> reasonable to go with the above. However, 'm interested in any >> feedback or if anyone feels that requiring a blueprint for features is >> undesirable. > > The blueprint interface in Launchpad is kind of horrible for our purposes > (too many irrelevant fields to fill out). For features that aren't > big/controversial enough to require a spec, some projects have adopted a > 'spec-lite' process. Basically you raise a *bug* in Launchpad, give it > 'Wishlist' priority and tag it with 'spec-lite'. > > Sometimes a blueprint is the right answer (e.g. if it's high-priority and you > want to track it), but it's good to have the option. > Back in the Newton summit (in Austin), the Swift team spent quite a while discussing specs and blueprints and other ideas we'd used to organize what's being worked on. We concluded that specs weren't working (for some of the same reasons mentioned in this thread), so we decided to try something new. Our current process is described in the email I sent out last May: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/094026.html. So far, it's working pretty well. --John
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
