On 05/08/14 12:33 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
Hi all!

The following idea came out of last week's midcycle for how to improve our
spec process and tracking on launchpad. I think most of us liked it, but of
course, not everyone was there, so I'll attempt to write out what I recall.

This would apply to new specs proposed for Kilo (since the new spec
proposal deadline has already passed for Juno).


First, create a blueprint in launchpad and populate it with your spec's
heading. Then, propose a spec with just the heading (containing a link to
the BP), Problem Description, and first paragraph outlining your Proposed
change.

This will be given an initial, high-level review to determine whether it is
in scope and in alignment with project direction, which will be reflected
on the review comments, and, if affirmed, by setting the blueprint's
"Direction" field to "Approved".

At this point, if affirmed, you should proceed with filling out the entire
spec, and the remainder of the process will continue as it was during Juno.
Once the spec is approved, update launchpad to set the specification URL to
the spec's location on https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/
and a member of the team (probably me) will update the release target,
priority, and status.


I believe this provides two benefits. First, it should give quicker initial
feedback to proposer if their change is going to be in/out of scope, which
can save considerable time if the proposal is out of scope. Second, it
allows us to track well-aligned specs on Launchpad before they are
completely approved. We observed that several specs were approved at nearly
the same time as the code was approved. Due to the way we were using LP
this cycle, it meant that LP did not reflect the project's direction in
advance of landing code, which is not what we intended. This may have been
confusing, and I think this will help next cycle. FWIW, several other
projects have observed a similar problem with spec<->launchpad interaction,
and are adopting similar practices for Kilo.


Comments/discussion welcome!

As someone who has proposed a lengthy spec that was deemed to be
out-of-scope (mea culpa!), a big +1 to this idea! :)

I think this will also be a good way to catch instances where several
people propose similar, overlapping specs.

I think we're still in 'laboratories of democracy' status with this,
but long-term I hope the various projects can converge on a single
protocol for proposing specs.

-- Matt

Attachment: pgpu4E8RgLHjT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to