On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:20:08AM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange > <berra...@redhat.com>wrote: > > > In this thread about code review: > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/013701.html > > > > I mentioned that I thought there were too many blueprints created without > > sufficient supporting design information and were being used for "tickbox" > > process compliance only. I based this assertion on a gut feeling I have > > from experiance in reviewing. > > > > To try and get a handle on whether there is truely a problem, I used the > > launchpadlib API to extract some data on blueprints [1]. > > > > In particular I was interested in seeing: > > > > - What portion of blueprints have an URL containing an associated > > design doc, > > > > - How long the descriptive text was in typical blueprints > > > > - Whether a blueprint was created before or after the dev period > > started for that major release. > > > > > > The first two items are easy to get data on. On the second point, I redid > > line wrapping on description text to normalize the line count across all > > blueprints. This is because many blueprints had all their text on one > > giant long line, which would skew results. I thus wrapped all blueprints > > at 70 characters. > > > > The blueprint creation date vs release cycle dev start date is a little > > harder. I inferred the start date of each release, by using the end date > > of the previous release. This is probably a little out but hopefully not > > by enough to totally invalidate the usefulness of the stats below. Below, > > "Early" means created before start of devel, "Late" means created after > > the start of devel period. > > > > The data for the last 3 releases is: > > > > Series: folsom > > Specs: 178 > > Specs (no URL): 144 > > Specs (w/ URL): 34 > > Specs (Early): 38 > > Specs (Late): 140 > > Average lines: 5 > > Average words: 55 > > > > > > Series: grizzly > > Specs: 227 > > Specs (no URL): 175 > > Specs (w/ URL): 52 > > Specs (Early): 42 > > Specs (Late): 185 > > Average lines: 5 > > Average words: 56 > > > > > > Series: havana > > Specs: 415 > > Specs (no URL): 336 > > Specs (w/ URL): 79 > > Specs (Early): 117 > > Specs (Late): 298 > > Average lines: 6 > > Average words: 68 > > > > > > Looking at this data there are 4 key take away points > > > > - We're creating more blueprints in every release. > > > > - Less than 1 in 4 blueprints has a link to a design document. > > > > - The description text for blueprints is consistently short > > (6 lines) across releases. > > > > - Less than 1 in 4 blueprints is created before the devel > > period starts for a release. > > > > > > You can view the full data set + the script to generate the > > data which you can look at to see if I made any logic mistakes: > > > > http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/openstack-blueprints/ > > > > > > There's only so much you can infer from stats like this, but IMHO think the > > stats show that we ought to think about how well we are using blueprints as > > design / feature approval / planning tools. > > > > > > That 3 in 4 blueprint lack any link to a design doc and have only 6 lines > > of > > text description, is a cause for concern IMHO. The blueprints should be > > giving > > code reviewers useful background on the motivation of the dev work & any > > design planning that took place. While there are no doubt some simple > > features > > where 6 lines of text is sufficient info in the blueprint, I don't think > > that > > holds true for the majority. > > > > How many of those blueprints without links or expansive documentation are > related to some other blueprint that does have documentation? In > ceilometer, we have several blueprint "clusters" where one main blueprint > has some documentation and the others are present for assigning and > scheduling the work of a multi-part feature, or vice versa. For example, > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/alarming has no real doc > because it's an "umbrella" blueprint for a lot of other pieces, many of > which *do* have documentation.
I don't know about ceilometer but for Nova I don't think there are such a large number of linked blueprints, as to make any significant difference to the stats here. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev