Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 03/18/2016 03:20:23 PM:
> From: Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Date: 03/18/2016 03:22 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder to move implemented nova > specs from mitaka > > > > On 3/18/2016 5:46 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote: > > Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 03/16/2016 09:49:06 > > PM: > > > >> From: Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >> Date: 03/16/2016 09:50 PM > >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder to move implemented nova > >> specs from mitaka > >> > >> Specs are proposed to the 'approved' subdirectory and when they are > >> completely implemented in launchpad (the blueprint status is > >> 'Implemented'), we should move the spec from the 'approved' subdirectory > > > >> to the 'implemented' subdirectory in the nova-specs repo. > >> > >> For example: > >> > >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248142/ > >> > >> These are the mitaka series blueprints from launchpad: > >> > >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/mitaka > >> > >> If anyone is really daring they could go through and move all of the > >> implemented ones in a single change. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Matt Riedemann > >> > > > > Is there a best practice how to handle a partially implemented bp (with > > spec file)? For example [1] needs additional effort during Newton to > > finish it. > > > > References: > > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/centralize-config-options > > > > Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z) > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > John was just telling me about this yesterday. I guess one thing we can > do is add a "(partial)" suffix to the title and mark the blueprint > complete for mitaka, and then the idea is to create a new blueprint for > newton for continuing the work, e.g. centralize-config-options-newton. > > The idea being we show that something was completed in mitaka when > you're looking at blueprints in launchpad for mitaka. > > I'm generally OK with that approach, the thing I don't really like is > when we have to re-propose specs and/or if there are dependent > blueprints in launchpad. Because creating the new blueprint means you > have to update the link in the spec when re-proposing it and you need to > update all of the dependent specs in launchpad for the new newton spec. > Maybe it's not a big deal, I can see benefits to either approach. > Personally I don't like to consider a blueprint complete until it's > actually complete, like has been the case with some of the cells v2 > blueprints we've re-proposed for newton. > > With long cleanup efforts like objects and config options though, I can > see how having release-specific blueprints is good. > > Markus, so to answer your original question, :), I'd probably mark the > existing bp as complete for mitaka and create a new > centralize-config-options-newton blueprint. > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt Riedemann OK, a new blueprint "centralize-config-options-newton" plus a copy of the spec (with updates according to [1]). The already pushed changes need to be updated then. As many of them need to be rebased anyway, that should be fine I think. I'm going to communicate that. Thanks Matt! [1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/readme.html#previously-approved-specifications __________________________________________________________________________ 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