On 1 July 2015 at 08:25, Matt Keenan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > In submitting my first ironic spec, I am following the process outlined at: > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ironic/Specs_Process > > As of Kilo this suggests we also follow: > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/041960.html > > This indicates that once a spec is registered before submission of the > spec text the registered spec needs to be given the ok. > > Quick discussion on IRC indicates that this was never adhered to. If it's > not going to be adhered to then I'd suggest removing this reference from > Specs_Process. > > cheers > > Matt >
Hi Matt, My interpretation of the email you referenced, was to help 'fast-track' two things: 1. new 'features' that didn't require a spec to be written and 2. new 'features' that are out of scope or something that just won't work for whatever reason. I believe it may be true (although I haven't read all the proposed specs) that no one has actually followed that process, but I don't know if that means we should not provide that as a choice. Are you interpreting it as 'You must follow this process' as opposed to 'You could choose to follow this process'? --ruby
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
