On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > TripleO (like some other projects in OpenStack) have not always done > good job in merging specs on time during a cycle. > I would like to make progress on this topic and for that, I propose we > set a deadline to get a spec approved for Ocata release. > This deadline would be Ocata-1 which is week of November 14th. > > So if you have a specs under review, please make sure it's well > communicated to our team (IRC, mailing-list, etc); comments are > addressed. > > Also, I would ask our team to spend some time to review them when they > have time. Here is the link: > https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/tripleo-specs+status:open
Given that we don't always require specs, should we make the same deadline for blueprints to get approved for Ocata as well? In fact, we haven't even always required blueprints for all features. In order to avoid any surprise FFE's towards the end of the cycle, I think it might be wise to start doing so. The overhead of creating a blueprint is very small, and it actually works to the implementer's advantage as it helps to focus review attention at the various milestones. So, we could say: - All features require a blueprint - They may require a spec if we need to reach concensus about the feature first - All Blueprints and Specs for Ocata not approved by November 14th will be deferred to Pike. Given we reviewed all the blueprints at the summit, and discussed all the features we plan to implement for Ocata, I think it would be reasonable to go with the above. However, 'm interested in any feedback or if anyone feels that requiring a blueprint for features is undesirable. -- -- James Slagle -- __________________________________________________________________________ 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
