I love that we are getting feedback from deployers/operations/etc. Thanks to all who have spoken up in support from that perspective.
On 4/16/14 4:02 AM, "Day, Phil" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >They are intended to be high level designs rather than low level designs, >so no they don't have to include all of the implementation details. > >On the other hand they should provided not only the info required to >decide that the feature is worth implementing, but also enough details so >that the reviewers can agree on the overall design approach (to avoid >churn late in the implementation review) and cover a number of other >areas that can and should be considered before the implementation starts >but seem too often get overlooked and are quite hard to dig back out from >the code (like what is the impact going to be on an system that's already >running). The template is specifically set up to try and prompt the >submitter to think about these issues, and I think that brings a huge >amount of value to this stage. At the moment I'm seeing a number of >sections being answered as "None" when really this seems to be "don't >know" or "didn't think about that" - and I'm thinking that we should ask >for a simple one-line justification of why there is no impact. There may be some consistency work needed. I spent some time/text in justification around no security impact in a spec. I was guided specifically that None was a better statement. Christopher _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
