On 19 November 2015 at 08:39, Pavlo Shchelokovskyy < pshchelokovs...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > +1 for specs in general, big features require a proper review and > discussion for which LP is not a good choice. > > +1 for not requiring a spec for small features, LP BP is enough for just > time/release tracking, but of course cores can request a proper spec to be > proposed if feeling feature is worth discussion. > > 0 for using ironic-specs. It will increase visibility to wider ironic > community, sure. But it seems ironic-inspector has to decide how integrated > it should be with the other ironic project infra pieces as well. For > example, there is now a patch on review to build a proper sphinx docs for > ironic-inspector. Should those then be published and where? Should > ironic-inspector have own doc site e.g. > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic-inspector/, or somehow be > incorporated in ironic doc site? IMO decision on specs and docs should be > consistent. > >> I tend to agree with Pavlo. I think it will be more consistent with the ironic-inspector docs, bugs, launchpad if the specs are in their own ironic-inspector-specs directory. Also, just looking at http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/, it isn't obvious to me where/how to reorganize it to include ironic-inspector. And then we'd probably want to address how to incorporate other projects eg IPA, bifrost specs as well, which I'd rather not have to think about. :-) --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
