On 12/21/2012 12:12 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Itamar Heim" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Pasternak" <[email protected]>
Cc: "engine-devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:42:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [SUGGESTION] Defining a process for the new feature
discussion/implementation.
On 12/19/2012 03:08 PM, Michael Pasternak wrote:
Hi All,
In many cases OSS maintainers not always can be in the loop of
different threads what may
cause them missing important decisions being taken,
As result later on during reviews of the patches they're not
accepting (already implemented)
features, what is causing not once for feature to be re-designed
and/or delayed, what is wrong
from the development cycle PoV.
Therefore I'd like to suggest establishing dev-rules for the new
feature implementation,
what will make entire process much more easer for all of us:
1. discuss new feature on the mailing list
(requirements/constraints/etc.)
2. summarise feature details in feature-doc
3. send feature-doc to review to:
3.1 ML (engine-devel)
3.2 MG (mailing group of maintainers of the relevant layers)
4. after feature-doc is accepted,
4.1 implement the feature
4.2 send it to gerrit for review to:
4.2.1 lead maintainer/s (they will review/delegate it)
NOTE 3.2, 4.2.1 will require defining MGs such as:
- engine-devel-core
- engine-devel-ui
- engine-devel-api
- engine-devel-sdk
- engine-devel-cli
- engine-devel-vdsm ...
Thoughts?
i thought this is what we have the arch mailing list for, since any
feature is going to cut through multiple layers/components, unless
they
are very specific, they should be sent to arch, and all maintainers
should follow arch.
What is missing is upstream bugzilla.
A feature, after initiate stage should be represented with a bug.
The bug should be assigned to the right designated milestone.
All document references (including versions) should be attached or referred by
the bug.
Dependency between features can be established using bug dependencies.
Status can be acquired from buzilla at any time, progress reports should be
input into bugzilla.
Contact details for the feature can be acquired too, relevant and interested
parties can be CCed explicitly.
I guess I can add more benefits.
Mailing list is good for idea initiation, but not for lifecycle management, nor
for people to join at implementation phase and understand why, how and when.
Having upstream bugzilla will also help us plan ahead, and manage the break the
project into smaller components, to assign core developers for each.
it still won't help tracking all relevant maintainers from rest api, ui,
engine, vdsm saw the bug. we have multiple components.
arch is mostly to cover cross component issues, such as features.
(or we could create a feature mailing list).
but i do agree we could use bugzilla for tracking features per version,
if wiki isn't tracking this correctly.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
