On 14 July 2014 07:11, Flavio Percoco <[email protected]> wrote: > I almost fully agree with this last point. The bit I don't agree with is > that there are some small refactor changes that aim to change a core > piece of the project without any impact on the final user that are > spec/blueprint worthy to explaining the motivation, expected results and > drawbacks. > > To put it in another way. Developers are consumers of project's code, > therefore the changes affecting the way developers interact with the > code are also blueprint worth it, IMHO.
The way I've been playing it on cinder is to ask for a spec if I'm reviewing a patch that doesn't have one and I find myself questioning the approach rather than the code. I think it is fair to say that core reviewers shouldn't be afraid to ask for a spec at any time they think it will help, guidelines aside. This allows contributors to attempt the lightweight process and skip the spec if they don't expect to need one. -- Duncan Thomas _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
