On 07/06/15 23:19, Ruby Loo wrote:
On 1 July 2015 at 08:25, Matt Keenan <matt.kee...@oracle.com <mailto:matt.kee...@oracle.com>> 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'?
My interpretation was "You must follow this process", but if it's optional then not an issue I guess.
cheers Matt
--ruby __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
