On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Joe Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 02:57:23PM -0700, Michael Still wrote: >> > Hey, >> > >> > it would be cool if devs posting changes for nova which depend on us >> > approving their spec could use Depends-On to make sure their code >> > doesn't land until the spec does. >> >> Does it actually bring any benefit ? Any change for which there is >> a spec is already supposed to be tagged with 'Blueprint: foo-bar-wiz' >> and nova core devs are supposed to check the blueprint is approved >> before +A'ing it. So also adding a Depends-on just feels redundant >> to me, and so is one more hurdle for contributors to remember to >> add. If we're concerned people forget the Blueprint tag, or forget >> to check blueprint approval, then we'll just have same problem with >> depends-on - people will forget to add it, and cores will forget >> to check the dependant change. So this just feels like extra rules >> for no gain and extra pain. >> > > I think it does have a benefit. Giving a spec implementation patches, > commonly signals to reviewers to not review this patch (a -2 looks scary). > Instead of there was a depends-on no scary -2 is needed, we also wouldn't > need to hunt down the -2er and ask them to remove it (can be a delay due to > timezones). Anything that reduces the number of procedural -2s we need is a > good thing IMHO. But that doesn't mean we should require folks to do this, > we can try it out on a few patches and see how it goes. > > >> >> Regards, >> Daniel >> -- >> |: http://berrange.com -o- >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| >> |: http://libvirt.org -o- >> http://virt-manager.org :| >> |: http://autobuild.org -o- >> http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| >> |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- >> http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > Seems ok, but I'm wondering if maybe others are doing specs differently. What I mean is, we seem to be growing a long process tail: 1. spec 2. blueprint 3. patch with link to blueprint and now 4. patch with tag Depends-On: spec I think we used to say "if there's a bp link and it's not approved don't merge" which seems similar. We've had so many "procedural" steps added/removed that who knows if I'm just completely out of sync or not. Certainly not saying I oppose the idea, just wondering about how much red-tape we create and what we do with it all. John
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
