On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jay S. Bryant < [email protected]> wrote:
> All, > > I have gotten questions from our driver developers asking for details > regarding the move to using cinder-specs for proposing Blueprints. I > brought this topic up in today's Cinder Weekly Meeting, but the meeting > was lightly attended so we decided to move the discussion here. > > I am going to put this note in the form of 'question' and proposed > answer based on the brief discussion we had today. Note that the > answers here are based on the assumption that we want to keep Cinder's > use of 'specs' as close to Nova's as possible. I used the following > mailing list thread as a starting point for some of these answers: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032796.html > > Q: When is a spec approved? > A: When it receives a +2 from the PTL and at least one other Core > reviewer. > > Q: How long are specs valid for? > A: For the duration of the release cycle. Any specs that are not > approved during that period of type will need to be resubmitted for the > subsequent release. > > Q: What will the spec template look like? > A: This is one of the points I would like to discuss. The Nova template > currently looks like this: > https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst > Do we want to follow the same template. In the interest of staying in > sync with Nova's implementation I would say yes, but does this meet our > needs? Are there other/different fields we want to consider to help for > instances where the Blueprint is for a new driver or change to a driver? > I think we might need, for instance, a 'Drivers Impacted' field. > > Q: Will driver developers have to use the same template for functions in > their drivers? > A: Also a point I would like to discuss. Developers had asked if a more > limited template would be used for changes going into the developer's > driver. At first I thought maybe a different template for Blueprints > against a driver might be appropriate, but after looking more closely at > Nova's template perhaps that is not necessary. I would lean towards > keeping one template, but maybe not requiring all fields depending on > what our final template ends up looking like. > > Q: Where do specs for python-cinderclient go? > A: Looks like Nova has added a python-novaclient directory. I don't > think we would need a separate python-cinderclient-specs repository but > don't have a strong opinion on this point. > We are toying with this idea. It turns out there aren't really many python-*client only blueprints. This becomes a bigger issue if the cinder program ends up with more repos in the future. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/programs.yaml#n85 > > I am sure this is not an exhaustive list of questions/answers at this > point in time but I wanted to start the discussion so we could help move > this process forward. I look forward to your feedback. > > -Jay Bryant > [email protected] > Freenode: jungleboyj > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
