Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP approval
On 02:22 Sat 07 Mar , Chen, Wei D wrote: > Hi, > > I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is merged, > but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of > them (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory for > getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to > confirm with that? > > Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3], only > PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the > acceptable procedure for the coming 'L'. > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/ > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147726/ > [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-k3-priorities > [4] > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata > [5] > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata There are a few things: 1) The blueprint should've been approved and targeted for K-3 after the spec was merged, but that never happened. 2) This shouldn't have been -2 on March 6th, it still had until March 10th technically since the blueprint should've been approved. 3) There were disageements on snapshots having mutable metadata as discussed in a Cinder meeting [1]. I agree with Duncan on how this can break billing properties. I also mentioned in the meeting that I would not merge this until that was addressed. Regardless, we're way too late for K now. Apologies on this not been targeted, but feel free to let me know in the future if I miss something of yours that should be targeted so it's prioritized. [1] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/cinder/2015/cinder.2015-02-11-16.00.log.html#l-186 -- Mike Perez __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP approval
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Chen, Wei D wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Thanks so much for your detailed answer, I finally know the reason why > those patches are not reviewed in this cycle. > Actually, this BP ( > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata) > is created very > early around Nov. 2014, and there is BP even earlier before that > ( > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-volume-image-metadata) > which is created around May 2014. > > Maybe they just believe this is not such important and not worth to take > time to review. Hope those patches could be reviewed in > 'L'. > > Best Regards, > Dave Chen > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stef...@openstack.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:14 PM > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and > BP approval > > > > Hi David, > > > > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 02:22 +, Chen, Wei D wrote: > > > I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is > > > merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of them > > > (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory for > > > getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to confirm with > > > that? > > > > Since Cinder uses BP+spec, the process is described on the wiki page: > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Spec_.2B_Blueprints_lifecycle > > > > If it helps, I'd consider the spec and the blueprint as "one" element > made of two pieces. The spec needs to be "approved" and > > its corresponding blueprint needs to be approved and have a priority, > deadline/milestone assigned. If any of these attributes > > is missing, the feature is not going to be reviewed. > > > > Blueprints and their attributes 'priority' and 'milestone' are used to > track the status of the release. The reviewers use BPs to > > identify the code that they need to review. For example, > > https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/kilo-3 > > > > I've tried to piece the history of your experience from the links you > > provided: > > > > - you submitted the spec in November 2014 > > - the spec was approved on Jan 6, 2015 (from > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/) > > - the spec references two blueprints, one for Cinder, one of > Cinder-client; both BPs were created at the end of February > > - none of the BP have a milestone set > > - you submitted code related to the approved spec between Jan 6 and today > > > > I have the impression that you may have missed a step in the BP+spec > process. I have tried to find the documentation for this > > process myself and I had a hard time, too. > > > > > Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3], > > > only PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the acceptable > > > procedure for the coming 'L'. > > > > The project team leaders (PTL) are ultimately responsible to set the > priorities, although the decision is always a consensual > > decision of the core teams. > > > > Have you considered joining OpenStack Upstream Training? > > > https://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/02/openstack-upstream-training-in-vancouver/ > > > > Cheers, > > stef > > > > > > > __ > > 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 > > ​First I'd like to thank Stef for the clear explanation; second I'd like to apologize Dave if you're feeling like nobody cares or don't feel your patch is that important. That's really not the case, it's just a matter of scheduling and priorities and honestly sometimes there's just more in the pipeline than we're able to actually process. I did notice that the bulk of your bp did in fact merge so that's good. Things like the cinderclient are a spec
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP approval
Hi Stefano, Thanks so much for your detailed answer, I finally know the reason why those patches are not reviewed in this cycle. Actually, this BP (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata) is created very early around Nov. 2014, and there is BP even earlier before that (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-volume-image-metadata) which is created around May 2014. Maybe they just believe this is not such important and not worth to take time to review. Hope those patches could be reviewed in 'L'. Best Regards, Dave Chen > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stef...@openstack.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:14 PM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP > approval > > Hi David, > > On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 02:22 +, Chen, Wei D wrote: > > I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is > > merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of them > > (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory for > > getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to confirm with > > that? > > Since Cinder uses BP+spec, the process is described on the wiki page: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Spec_.2B_Blueprints_lifecycle > > If it helps, I'd consider the spec and the blueprint as "one" element made of > two pieces. The spec needs to be "approved" and > its corresponding blueprint needs to be approved and have a priority, > deadline/milestone assigned. If any of these attributes > is missing, the feature is not going to be reviewed. > > Blueprints and their attributes 'priority' and 'milestone' are used to track > the status of the release. The reviewers use BPs to > identify the code that they need to review. For example, > https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/kilo-3 > > I've tried to piece the history of your experience from the links you > provided: > > - you submitted the spec in November 2014 > - the spec was approved on Jan 6, 2015 (from > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/) > - the spec references two blueprints, one for Cinder, one of Cinder-client; > both BPs were created at the end of February > - none of the BP have a milestone set > - you submitted code related to the approved spec between Jan 6 and today > > I have the impression that you may have missed a step in the BP+spec process. > I have tried to find the documentation for this > process myself and I had a hard time, too. > > > Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3], > > only PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the acceptable > > procedure for the coming 'L'. > > The project team leaders (PTL) are ultimately responsible to set the > priorities, although the decision is always a consensual > decision of the core teams. > > Have you considered joining OpenStack Upstream Training? > https://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/02/openstack-upstream-training-in-vancouver/ > > Cheers, > stef > > > __ > 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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP approval
Hi David, On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 02:22 +, Chen, Wei D wrote: > I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is > merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of > them (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory > for getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to > confirm with that? Since Cinder uses BP+spec, the process is described on the wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Spec_.2B_Blueprints_lifecycle If it helps, I'd consider the spec and the blueprint as "one" element made of two pieces. The spec needs to be "approved" and its corresponding blueprint needs to be approved and have a priority, deadline/milestone assigned. If any of these attributes is missing, the feature is not going to be reviewed. Blueprints and their attributes 'priority' and 'milestone' are used to track the status of the release. The reviewers use BPs to identify the code that they need to review. For example, https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/kilo-3 I've tried to piece the history of your experience from the links you provided: - you submitted the spec in November 2014 - the spec was approved on Jan 6, 2015 (from https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/) - the spec references two blueprints, one for Cinder, one of Cinder-client; both BPs were created at the end of February - none of the BP have a milestone set - you submitted code related to the approved spec between Jan 6 and today I have the impression that you may have missed a step in the BP+spec process. I have tried to find the documentation for this process myself and I had a hard time, too. > Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3], > only PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the > acceptable procedure for the coming 'L'. The project team leaders (PTL) are ultimately responsible to set the priorities, although the decision is always a consensual decision of the core teams. Have you considered joining OpenStack Upstream Training? https://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/02/openstack-upstream-training-in-vancouver/ Cheers, stef __ 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-dev] [cinder]difference between spec merged and BP approval
Hi, I thought the feature should be approved as long as the SPEC[1] is merged, but it seems I am wrong from the beginning[2], both of them (SPEC merged and BP approval[4][5]) is necessary and mandatory for getting some effective reviews, right? anyone can help to confirm with that? Besides, who is eligible to define/modify the priority in the list[3], only PTL or any core? I am trying to understand the acceptable procedure for the coming 'L'. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136253/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/147726/ [3] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/cinder-k3-priorities [4] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata [5] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-cinderclient/+spec/support-modify-volume-image-metadata Best Regards, Dave Chen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature __ 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
