> -----Original Message----- > From: Jay S. Bryant [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [openstack-dev] [cinder] proposal of definitions/processes for > cinder-spec > > 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.
I think it's better to use the same template initially. This will make the developers feel familiar and reduce the study cost if they had ever submit a spec in other project(for example nova). We can improve the template if it's necessary later. > > 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. > I vote for a separate directory for a neat feeling. Best regards to you. Ricky > 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
