On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stef...@openstack.org> wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
>> That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a smartest
>> reviewer catching out the facts that you donĀ¹t.
>
> And yet, the specification clearly talks about 'endpoints' and nobody
> caught it where it supposed to be caught so I fear that something failed
> badly here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89469/10
>
> What failed and how we make sure this doesn't happen again? This to me
> is the most important question to answer.  If I remember correctly we
> introduced the concept of Specs exactly to discuss on the ideas *before*
> the implementation starts. We wanted things like architecture, naming
> conventions and other important decisions to be socialized and agreed
> upon *before* code was proposed. We wanted to avoid developers to spend
> time implementing features in ways that are incompatible and likely to
> be rejected at code review time. And yet, here we are.
>
> Something failed and I would ask for all core reviewers to sit down and
> do an exercise to identify the root cause. If you want we can start from
> this specific case, do some simple root cause analysis together and take
> GBP as an example. Thoughts?
>
+100

I'm willing to dedicate part of the Neutron meeting Monday to do a
public post-mortem on GBP here. Stefano, can you attend this meeting
Monday and be there to help guide the conversation as a third party to
the entire process?

Thanks,
Kyle

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

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

Reply via email to