Sounds good. We have already started creating JIRA ticket for proposals. -- Yujun
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:08 PM Ryota Mibu <r-m...@cq.jp.nec.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > > > To track our activity, we have to use JIRA. Spec review in gerrit could be > additional step for our design discussion. In OpenStack, developers are > using Launchpad (similar to JIRA) as well as gerrit for spec discussion. > > > > Thinking of size and characteristic of Doctors, I prefer to avoid an > additional required step for proposal. But, I agree that having spec review > might be good to have a discussion in the team. So, my suggestion is to > have an optional step for spec document review. Some spec proposals for > OpenStack already exist in doctor/design. Maybe we can create sub folders > per project under doctor/design (for instance, nova, neutron, ceilometer > and doctor). > > > > I add this topic to the agenda of our weekly meeting. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Ryota > > > > > > *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Yujun Zhang > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 11:20 PM > *To:* Carlos Goncalves <carlos.goncal...@neclab.eu>; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV < > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] How to propose topics for > D-release > > > > It's fine for me to skip spec review step if it is just a simple task to > track or we have already submit a blueprint in upstream. > > > > My idea is that when we have something complicated to implement in doctor. > We'd better launch a spec review in gerrit. > > > > As the run.sh growing larger, it might become a high priority task to > discuss how to refactor it in release D. So that we can introduce more use > cases in doctor, with different monitors, inspectors and of course to be > tested under different installers. > > > > What do you think? > > -- > > Yujun > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:18 PM Carlos Goncalves < > carlos.goncal...@neclab.eu> wrote: > > I didn’t mention earlier but we do use Gerrit for reviewing OpenStack > specs before submitting upstream to review.openstack.org. > > > > Still, the point you are raising is that you feel we need to introduce > specs for Doctor in general. Have you felt already the drawbacks you > mentioned of using Jira when proposing new items? Personally I did not fell > myself or noticed anyone having problems, but I don’t follow every single > Doctor-related issue so I could be missing something. > > > > Please understand that the main reason I see for trying to avoid spec > files at this moment is that they add lots of overhead to everyone. I don’t > see a big item justifying a spec file in Doctor, except items we need to > implement upstream (e.g. OpenStack). > > > > Wrt contributors visiting Gerrit more than Jira: the OPNFV team, and in > particular the release team, is making the effort of utilizing Jira as much > as possible for the purpose of documenting epics, tasks, bugs, etc. Going > against that should be avoided and contributors encouraged to use Jira as > well. > > > > Carlos > > > > *From:* Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 07 September 2016 10:48 > *To:* Carlos Goncalves; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] How to propose topics for > D-release > > > > Hi, Carlos > > > > The etherpad for release B looks good and I think we should continue using > it. > > > > On the working items, personally I don't think JIRA is a good system for > storing the spec for some reasons. > > 1. it is difficult to comment inline in JIRA issues > 2. it is difficult to track the change history of a spec in JIRA > 3. it is difficult to publish approved working items to a document > from JIRA > > Last but not least, contributors visits JIRA less often than gerrit, at > least on my side... > > > > We don't have to force a strict rule to approve a working item, but we > need a convenient tool to discuss about it. And I prefer to keep the spec > close to the source code so they won't deviate too much from each other. > > > > These are my starting point to propose gerrit instead of JIRA for specs. > Open for comments :-) > > > > -- > > Yujun > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:34 PM Carlos Goncalves < > carlos.goncal...@neclab.eu> wrote: > > We’ve been using etherpad, weekly meeting and F2F team meetings for > brainstorming. The team even strives to plan and align public presentations > (e.g. OpenStack and OPNFV Summit events). > > > Examples: > > https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/doctor > > https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/doctor_use_case_for_b_release > > https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/doctor_meetings > > > > Due to large communities in e.g. Neutron and Nova, those projects felt the > need to stricter the reviewing process of work item proposals. I think > Doctor is not at that level, at least just yet. I believe we’re just fine > with the tools and flows we’ve been using so far, including JIRA. Unless we > have a compelling reason to change our workflow, I would suggest keeping as > is. > > > > I am open for suggestions/comments. > > > > Carlos > > > > *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto: > opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Yujun Zhang > *Sent:* 07 September 2016 09:00 > *To:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] How to propose topics for > D-release > > > > This topic was raised in the last meeting but one [1] which I was absent > from. I'm not sure if there is any conclusion out. > > > > Here are my proposals. Please feel free to comment > > 1. using etherpad for brainstorming, since it is lightweight and real > time > 2. submit detail proposals to gerrit for review like openstack > blueprint [2] > 3. track status of the approved spec in JIRA > > [1] > http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-doctor/2016/opnfv-doctor.2016-08-30-13.01.html > > [2] > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Spec_.2B_Blueprints_lifecycle > >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
