The specs repo is now available here:
https://github.com/openstack/ironic-specs
Reviews for specs can be found here:
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/ironic-specs,n,z
I've updated all Ironic's blueprints on Launchpad to "definition: new" and
"direction: needs approval". Plea
+1 to this process, and I think the template is pretty reasonable.
One thing to call out maybe, is are there any known failure scenarios? If
so, why shouldn't they block the spec?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Devananda van der Veen <
devananda@gmail.com> wrote:
> Added -
>
> https://git
Added -
https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs/commit/7f34f353332ad5b26830dadc8c9f870df399feb7
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> I'd like to suggest two things.
>
> Firstly a section on scale (as opposed to performance).
>
> Secondly, I'd like to see additional hard re
I'd like to suggest two things.
Firstly a section on scale (as opposed to performance).
Secondly, I'd like to see additional hard requirements that will be
added to drivers called out (e.g. a 'Driver Impact' section).
-Rob
On 19 May 2014 10:03, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As wi
Hi all,
As with several other projects, and as discussed at the summit, Ironic is
moving to a formal / specs-based design process. The reasons for this have
been well summarized in previous email threads in other projects [*], but
in short, it's because, until now, nearly all our blueprints lacked
