Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kevin Benton]

You can't upload directly. You have to follow the same gerrit review
process as submitting regular code.
Run 'git review' from the root of the neutron-specs folder.

--
Kevin Benton


On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Nader Lahouti wrote:

> Do I need any permission to upload a design specification in the
> 'specs/juno' folder in neutron-specs?
>
> I tried to upload and get this message:
> fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/openstack/neutron-specs.git/':
> The requested URL returned error: 403
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks,
> Nader.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>
>> Wow, easiest merge ever!  Can we get this repository counted in our
>> stats?!  ;)
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Kyle Mestery 
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Carl Baldwin 
>> wrote:
>> >> Sure thing [1].  The easiest change I saw was to remove the
>> >> restriction that the number of sub titles is exactly 9.  This won't
>> >> require any of the other blueprints already posted for review to
>> >> change.  See what you think.
>> >>
>> > This was a good change, and in fact it's already been merged. Thanks!
>> >
>> > Kyle
>> >
>> >> Carl
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88381/
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyle Mestery <
>> mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin 
>> wrote:
>>  Neutron (and Nova),
>> 
>>  I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
>>  that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
>>  of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but
>> before
>>  the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not
>> allowed
>>  by the tests.
>> 
>>  Proposed change
>>  =
>> 
>>  I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
>>  because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
>>  sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
>>  seems a bit unnatural to me.
>> 
>>  Alternatives
>>  
>>  ...
>> 
>> 
>>  The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
>>  doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
>>  like this?
>> 
>>  Proposed change
>>  =
>> 
>>  Overview
>>  
>> 
>>  I could add structure under here.
>> 
>>  Alternatives
>>  
>>  ...
>> 
>>  Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
>>  least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
>>  another.
>> 
>> >>> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
>> >>> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
>> >>> similar to nova-specs.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Kyle
>> >>>
>>  Carl
>> 
>>  On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery <
>> mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote:
>> > Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> > their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> > sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> > instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in
>> Juno,
>> > this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> > you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> > to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>> >
>> > Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> > anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> > this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort
>> through
>> > whatever issues we find.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Kyle
>> >
>> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>> >
>> > ___
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> 
>>  ___
>>  OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>  OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>  http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> > ___
>> > OpenStac

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Nader Lahouti]

Do I need any permission to upload a design specification in the
'specs/juno' folder in neutron-specs?

I tried to upload and get this message:
fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/openstack/neutron-specs.git/':
The requested URL returned error: 403

Please advise.

Thanks,
Nader.



On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:

> Wow, easiest merge ever!  Can we get this repository counted in our
> stats?!  ;)
>
> Carl
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Kyle Mestery 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Carl Baldwin 
> wrote:
> >> Sure thing [1].  The easiest change I saw was to remove the
> >> restriction that the number of sub titles is exactly 9.  This won't
> >> require any of the other blueprints already posted for review to
> >> change.  See what you think.
> >>
> > This was a good change, and in fact it's already been merged. Thanks!
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88381/
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyle Mestery <
> mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin 
> wrote:
>  Neutron (and Nova),
> 
>  I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
>  that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
>  of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
>  the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
>  by the tests.
> 
>  Proposed change
>  =
> 
>  I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
>  because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
>  sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
>  seems a bit unnatural to me.
> 
>  Alternatives
>  
>  ...
> 
> 
>  The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
>  doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
>  like this?
> 
>  Proposed change
>  =
> 
>  Overview
>  
> 
>  I could add structure under here.
> 
>  Alternatives
>  
>  ...
> 
>  Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
>  least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
>  another.
> 
> >>> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
> >>> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
> >>>
> >>> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
> >>> similar to nova-specs.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Kyle
> >>>
>  Carl
> 
>  On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery <
> mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote:
> > Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> > their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> > sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> > instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
> > this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> > you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> > to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
> >
> > Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> > anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> > this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> > whatever issues we find.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Kyle
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
> >
> > ___
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
>  ___
>  OpenStack-dev mailing list
>  OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>  http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >> ___
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > ___
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStac

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Carl Baldwin]

Wow, easiest merge ever!  Can we get this repository counted in our stats?!  ;)

Carl

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>> Sure thing [1].  The easiest change I saw was to remove the
>> restriction that the number of sub titles is exactly 9.  This won't
>> require any of the other blueprints already posted for review to
>> change.  See what you think.
>>
> This was a good change, and in fact it's already been merged. Thanks!
>
> Kyle
>
>> Carl
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88381/
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyle Mestery  
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
 Neutron (and Nova),

 I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
 that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
 of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
 the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
 by the tests.

 Proposed change
 =

 I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
 because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
 sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
 seems a bit unnatural to me.

 Alternatives
 
 ...


 The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
 doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
 like this?

 Proposed change
 =

 Overview
 

 I could add structure under here.

 Alternatives
 
 ...

 Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
 least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
 another.

>>> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
>>> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
>>>
>>> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
>>> similar to nova-specs.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyle
>>>
 Carl

 On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
 wrote:
> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>
> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> whatever issues we find.
>
> Thanks!
> Kyle
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
> Sure thing [1].  The easiest change I saw was to remove the
> restriction that the number of sub titles is exactly 9.  This won't
> require any of the other blueprints already posted for review to
> change.  See what you think.
>
This was a good change, and in fact it's already been merged. Thanks!

Kyle

> Carl
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88381/
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyle Mestery  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>>> Neutron (and Nova),
>>>
>>> I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
>>> that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
>>> of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
>>> the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
>>> by the tests.
>>>
>>> Proposed change
>>> =
>>>
>>> I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
>>> because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
>>> sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
>>> seems a bit unnatural to me.
>>>
>>> Alternatives
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
>>> doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
>>> like this?
>>>
>>> Proposed change
>>> =
>>>
>>> Overview
>>> 
>>>
>>> I could add structure under here.
>>>
>>> Alternatives
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
>>> least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
>>> another.
>>>
>> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
>> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
>>
>> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
>> similar to nova-specs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle
>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
>>> wrote:
 Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
 their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
 sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
 instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
 this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
 you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
 to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].

 Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
 anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
 this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
 whatever issues we find.

 Thanks!
 Kyle

 [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Carl Baldwin]

Sure thing [1].  The easiest change I saw was to remove the
restriction that the number of sub titles is exactly 9.  This won't
require any of the other blueprints already posted for review to
change.  See what you think.

Carl

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88381/

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>> Neutron (and Nova),
>>
>> I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
>> that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
>> of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
>> the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
>> by the tests.
>>
>> Proposed change
>> =
>>
>> I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
>> because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
>> sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
>> seems a bit unnatural to me.
>>
>> Alternatives
>> 
>> ...
>>
>>
>> The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
>> doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
>> like this?
>>
>> Proposed change
>> =
>>
>> Overview
>> 
>>
>> I could add structure under here.
>>
>> Alternatives
>> 
>> ...
>>
>> Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
>> least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
>> another.
>>
> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
>
> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
> similar to nova-specs.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
>> wrote:
>>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>>
>>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>>> whatever issues we find.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Kyle
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Nachi Ueno]

Hi folks

My bad,, Issue (1) was my mistake, and fixed

2014-04-16 15:16 GMT-07:00 Nachi Ueno :
> Hi folks
>
> I submitted a wip patch which has diagram examples for both of ascii
> flow and blockdiag.
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88095/1
>
> This is both output from ascii flow and blockdiag.
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Screenshot.png
>
> I faced two issue in ascii flow. May be, I'm missing something.
>
> (1) Test fails
> ==
> FAIL: tests.test_titles.TestTitles.test_template
> tags: worker-0
> --
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "tests/test_titles.py", line 105, in test_template
> self._check_titles(titles)
>   File "tests/test_titles.py", line 55, in _check_titles
> self.assertEqual(7, len(titles))
>   File 
> "/home/ubuntu/neutron-specs/.tox/py27/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py",
> line 321, in assertEqual
> self.assertThat(observed, matcher, message)
>   File 
> "/home/ubuntu/neutron-specs/.tox/py27/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py",
> line 406, in assertThat
> raise mismatch_error
> MismatchError: 7 != 8
>
> (2) looks fine in text but broken in html
> (3) Productivity
>it takes 28 sec to write A -> B -> C diagram using ascii flow.
>It was 5 sec using block diag.
>
>
> 2014-04-16 14:43 GMT-07:00 Kyle Mestery :
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>>> Neutron (and Nova),
>>>
>>> I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
>>> that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
>>> of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
>>> the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
>>> by the tests.
>>>
>>> Proposed change
>>> =
>>>
>>> I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
>>> because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
>>> sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
>>> seems a bit unnatural to me.
>>>
>>> Alternatives
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
>>> doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
>>> like this?
>>>
>>> Proposed change
>>> =
>>>
>>> Overview
>>> 
>>>
>>> I could add structure under here.
>>>
>>> Alternatives
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
>>> least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
>>> another.
>>>
>> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
>> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
>>
>> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
>> similar to nova-specs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle
>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
>>> wrote:
 Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
 their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
 sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
 instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
 this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
 you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
 to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].

 Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
 anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
 this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
 whatever issues we find.

 Thanks!
 Kyle

 [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron

 ___
 OpenStack-dev mailing list
 OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Nachi Ueno]

Hi folks

I submitted a wip patch which has diagram examples for both of ascii
flow and blockdiag.

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88095/1

This is both output from ascii flow and blockdiag.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Screenshot.png

I faced two issue in ascii flow. May be, I'm missing something.

(1) Test fails
==
FAIL: tests.test_titles.TestTitles.test_template
tags: worker-0
--
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "tests/test_titles.py", line 105, in test_template
self._check_titles(titles)
  File "tests/test_titles.py", line 55, in _check_titles
self.assertEqual(7, len(titles))
  File 
"/home/ubuntu/neutron-specs/.tox/py27/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py",
line 321, in assertEqual
self.assertThat(observed, matcher, message)
  File 
"/home/ubuntu/neutron-specs/.tox/py27/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py",
line 406, in assertThat
raise mismatch_error
MismatchError: 7 != 8

(2) looks fine in text but broken in html
(3) Productivity
   it takes 28 sec to write A -> B -> C diagram using ascii flow.
   It was 5 sec using block diag.


2014-04-16 14:43 GMT-07:00 Kyle Mestery :
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>> Neutron (and Nova),
>>
>> I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
>> that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
>> of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
>> the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
>> by the tests.
>>
>> Proposed change
>> =
>>
>> I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
>> because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
>> sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
>> seems a bit unnatural to me.
>>
>> Alternatives
>> 
>> ...
>>
>>
>> The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
>> doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
>> like this?
>>
>> Proposed change
>> =
>>
>> Overview
>> 
>>
>> I could add structure under here.
>>
>> Alternatives
>> 
>> ...
>>
>> Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
>> least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
>> another.
>>
> I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
> please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.
>
> Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
> similar to nova-specs.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
>> wrote:
>>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>>
>>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>>> whatever issues we find.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Kyle
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
> Neutron (and Nova),
>
> I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
> that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
> of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
> the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
> by the tests.
>
> Proposed change
> =
>
> I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
> because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
> sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
> seems a bit unnatural to me.
>
> Alternatives
> 
> ...
>
>
> The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
> doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
> like this?
>
> Proposed change
> =
>
> Overview
> 
>
> I could add structure under here.
>
> Alternatives
> 
> ...
>
> Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
> least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
> another.
>
I'm fine with either of these proposed changes to be honest. Carl,
please submit a patch to neutron-specs and we can review it there.

Also, I'm in the process of adding some jenkins jobs for neutron-specs
similar to nova-specs.

Thanks,
Kyle

> Carl
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
> wrote:
>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>
>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>> whatever issues we find.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kyle
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Carl Baldwin]

Neutron (and Nova),

I have had one thing come up as I've been using the template.  I find
that I would like to add just a little document structure in the form
of a sub-heading or two under the "Proposed change" heading but before
the required "Alternatives" sub-heading.  However, this is not allowed
by the tests.

Proposed change
=

I want to add a little bit of document structure here but I cannot
because any sub-headings would be counted among the exactly 9
sub-headings I'm required to have starting with "Alternatives".  This
seems a bit unnatural to me.

Alternatives

...


The sub-headings allow structure underneath but the first heading
doesn't.  Could be do it a little bit differentely?  Maybe something
like this?

Proposed change
=

Overview


I could add structure under here.

Alternatives

...

Thoughts?  Another idea might be to change the test to require at
least the nine required sub-headings but allow for the addition of
another.

Carl

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>
> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> whatever issues we find.
>
> Thanks!
> Kyle
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Eugene Nikanorov]

I would prefer not to be strict on the requirements for diagrams.
If it looks ok in ascii - that's fine, nwdiag is fine as well.
I think both of tools worth mentioning in bp template.

Thanks,
Eugene.



On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Alan Kavanagh
wrote:

> Tend to agree Nachi, that would be my preference, especially when the
> diagrams are fairly complex which is the case most of the time in Neutron.
> However if the BP is long lived then I think it makes sense to use ASCII,
> but if its short for a small feature to be included in next release then I
> agree the simplest and quickest way is a better use of our time.
>
> /Alan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nachi Ueno [mailto:na...@ntti3.com]
> Sent: April-16-14 3:19 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno
>
> Hi folks
>
> I don't think to use ASCII digrams is good idea because it is hard to
> maintenance & update  diagrams..
> so I would like to recommend Blockdiag & Netdiag which are plugins for
> sphinx.
>
> Blockdiag
> http://blockdiag.com/en/blockdiag/
>
> blockdiag {
>A -> B -> C -> D;
>A -> E -> F -> G;
> }
>
> will be
>
> http://blockdiag.com/en/_images/blockdiag-69b48ddf499e79e437fbdf9f0e767e365f846d7a.png
>
> (see more example
> http://blockdiag.com/en/blockdiag/examples.html )
>
> or you can try online http://blockdiag.appspot.com/
>
> NetDiag
> http://blockdiag.com/en/nwdiag/
>
> nwdiag {
>   network dmz {
>   address = "210.x.x.x/24"
>
>   web01 [address = "210.x.x.1"];
>   web02 [address = "210.x.x.2"];
>   }
>   network internal {
>   address = "172.x.x.x/24";
>
>   web01 [address = "172.x.x.1"];
>   web02 [address = "172.x.x.2"];
>   db01;
>   db02;
>   }
> }
>
> will be
>
>
> http://blockdiag.com/en/_images/nwdiag-472a0e8ead9b236d7d929e645767514615bb2392.png
>
> try
> http://blockdiag.appspot.com/nwdiag/
>
> http://blockdiag.com/en/nwdiag/nwdiag-examples.html
>
> We have more diagrams can be generated
>
> Activity diagram
> http://blockdiag.appspot.com/actdiag/
>
> Sequence diagram
> http://blockdiag.appspot.com/seqdiag/
>
> Best
> Nachi
>
> 2014-04-16 10:42 GMT-07:00 Kyle Mestery :
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Russell Bryant 
> wrote:
> >> On 04/16/2014 09:51 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>> On 04/16/2014 09:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> >>>> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about
> >>>> asciiflow.com <http://asciiflow.com> first!
> >>>
> >>> In all seriousness, I think that's a very nice solution for simple
> >>> diagrams.  :-)
> >>>
> >>> For other diagrams, I wonder if it makes sense to just upload them
> >>> to the wiki and include links to them from the spec using the image
> directive.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Another thread got started on this topic for Nova.
> >>
> >> I put up a proposal to require ASCII digrams for nova-specs here:
> >>
> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88028/
> >>
> > Great idea! I've done the same for neutron-specs here:
> >
> > https://review.openstack.org/88037
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Russell Bryant
> >>
> >> ___
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > ___
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Alan Kavanagh]

Tend to agree Nachi, that would be my preference, especially when the diagrams 
are fairly complex which is the case most of the time in Neutron. However if 
the BP is long lived then I think it makes sense to use ASCII, but if its short 
for a small feature to be included in next release then I agree the simplest 
and quickest way is a better use of our time.

/Alan

-Original Message-
From: Nachi Ueno [mailto:na...@ntti3.com] 
Sent: April-16-14 3:19 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

Hi folks

I don't think to use ASCII digrams is good idea because it is hard to 
maintenance & update  diagrams..
so I would like to recommend Blockdiag & Netdiag which are plugins for sphinx.

Blockdiag
http://blockdiag.com/en/blockdiag/

blockdiag {
   A -> B -> C -> D;
   A -> E -> F -> G;
}

will be
http://blockdiag.com/en/_images/blockdiag-69b48ddf499e79e437fbdf9f0e767e365f846d7a.png

(see more example
http://blockdiag.com/en/blockdiag/examples.html )

or you can try online http://blockdiag.appspot.com/

NetDiag
http://blockdiag.com/en/nwdiag/

nwdiag {
  network dmz {
  address = "210.x.x.x/24"

  web01 [address = "210.x.x.1"];
  web02 [address = "210.x.x.2"];
  }
  network internal {
  address = "172.x.x.x/24";

  web01 [address = "172.x.x.1"];
  web02 [address = "172.x.x.2"];
  db01;
  db02;
  }
}

will be

http://blockdiag.com/en/_images/nwdiag-472a0e8ead9b236d7d929e645767514615bb2392.png

try
http://blockdiag.appspot.com/nwdiag/

http://blockdiag.com/en/nwdiag/nwdiag-examples.html

We have more diagrams can be generated

Activity diagram
http://blockdiag.appspot.com/actdiag/

Sequence diagram
http://blockdiag.appspot.com/seqdiag/

Best
Nachi

2014-04-16 10:42 GMT-07:00 Kyle Mestery :
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Russell Bryant  wrote:
>> On 04/16/2014 09:51 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2014 09:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>>> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about 
>>>> asciiflow.com <http://asciiflow.com> first!
>>>
>>> In all seriousness, I think that's a very nice solution for simple 
>>> diagrams.  :-)
>>>
>>> For other diagrams, I wonder if it makes sense to just upload them 
>>> to the wiki and include links to them from the spec using the image 
>>> directive.
>>>
>>
>> Another thread got started on this topic for Nova.
>>
>> I put up a proposal to require ASCII digrams for nova-specs here:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88028/
>>
> Great idea! I've done the same for neutron-specs here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/88037
>
>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Collins, Sean]

Nice!! nwdiag would make things really easy.

-- 
Sean M. Collins
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Nachi Ueno]

Hi folks

I don't think to use ASCII digrams is good idea because it is hard to
maintenance & update
 diagrams..
so I would like to recommend Blockdiag & Netdiag which are plugins for sphinx.

Blockdiag
http://blockdiag.com/en/blockdiag/

blockdiag {
   A -> B -> C -> D;
   A -> E -> F -> G;
}

will be
http://blockdiag.com/en/_images/blockdiag-69b48ddf499e79e437fbdf9f0e767e365f846d7a.png

(see more example
http://blockdiag.com/en/blockdiag/examples.html )

or you can try online http://blockdiag.appspot.com/

NetDiag
http://blockdiag.com/en/nwdiag/

nwdiag {
  network dmz {
  address = "210.x.x.x/24"

  web01 [address = "210.x.x.1"];
  web02 [address = "210.x.x.2"];
  }
  network internal {
  address = "172.x.x.x/24";

  web01 [address = "172.x.x.1"];
  web02 [address = "172.x.x.2"];
  db01;
  db02;
  }
}

will be

http://blockdiag.com/en/_images/nwdiag-472a0e8ead9b236d7d929e645767514615bb2392.png

try
http://blockdiag.appspot.com/nwdiag/

http://blockdiag.com/en/nwdiag/nwdiag-examples.html

We have more diagrams can be generated

Activity diagram
http://blockdiag.appspot.com/actdiag/

Sequence diagram
http://blockdiag.appspot.com/seqdiag/

Best
Nachi

2014-04-16 10:42 GMT-07:00 Kyle Mestery :
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Russell Bryant  wrote:
>> On 04/16/2014 09:51 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2014 09:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
 if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about
 asciiflow.com  first!
>>>
>>> In all seriousness, I think that's a very nice solution for simple
>>> diagrams.  :-)
>>>
>>> For other diagrams, I wonder if it makes sense to just upload them to
>>> the wiki and include links to them from the spec using the image directive.
>>>
>>
>> Another thread got started on this topic for Nova.
>>
>> I put up a proposal to require ASCII digrams for nova-specs here:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88028/
>>
> Great idea! I've done the same for neutron-specs here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/88037
>
>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Russell Bryant  wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 09:51 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 04/16/2014 09:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about
>>> asciiflow.com  first!
>>
>> In all seriousness, I think that's a very nice solution for simple
>> diagrams.  :-)
>>
>> For other diagrams, I wonder if it makes sense to just upload them to
>> the wiki and include links to them from the spec using the image directive.
>>
>
> Another thread got started on this topic for Nova.
>
> I put up a proposal to require ASCII digrams for nova-specs here:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88028/
>
Great idea! I've done the same for neutron-specs here:

https://review.openstack.org/88037


> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Russell Bryant]

On 04/16/2014 09:51 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 09:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about
>> asciiflow.com  first!
> 
> In all seriousness, I think that's a very nice solution for simple
> diagrams.  :-)
> 
> For other diagrams, I wonder if it makes sense to just upload them to
> the wiki and include links to them from the spec using the image directive.
> 

Another thread got started on this topic for Nova.

I put up a proposal to require ASCII digrams for nova-specs here:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88028/

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:05 AM, trinath.soman...@freescale.com
 wrote:
> Hi Mestery
>
> With respect to the new BP review process, can we start submitting the BPs in 
> the review system and in the launchpad.
>
Yes, the repository is open and in fact we have our first review
posted already [1].

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/87825/

> Since, BP is a thought process of the developer either for core dev or for 
> vendor specific dev,
> can you give some light on how the review process of the BP can be ?
>
Hopefully the documentation on this process is mostly clear here [2].
For the actual review, we hope to get through these as they are filed.
I'm thinking of adding an item to the weekly neutron meeting agenda to
cover BPs, especially early in the Juno cycle. This way we can at
least highlight them so people are aware and we can discuss any major
issues once a week.

[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron

> asciiflow.com is a best tool for showing the pictorial representation of the 
> BP work. Thank you for the link..
>
> Were there any variations in general code review processes.
>
It should be effectively the same. Reviews can +2/+1/0/-1/-2, and once
we get consensus and multiple +2 votes, we can then +A (approve) the
BP. At that point, I'll schedule for inclusion into a Juno milestone
in LP.

Thanks!
Kyle

> -
> Trinath
>
> 
> From: Kyle Mestery 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:22 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno
>
> Actually, +1 to that Salvatore! I've found asciiflow.com to be superb
> for these types of things.
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando  
> wrote:
>> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about asciiflow.com
>> first!
>>
>>
>> On 16 April 2014 15:09, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the problem is that your spec should be at the toplevel of the
>>> juno directory, and that's why the UT is failing. Can you move your
>>> spec up a level, including the image? You can create a spec images
>>> directory to put them in there and reference it in the spec as well if
>>> you want.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
>>>  wrote:
>>> > What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
>>> > directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
>>> > allow it):
>>> >
>>> > specs/juno//.rst
>>> > specs/juno//images/.png
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > ~Sumit.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
>>> >> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>>> >>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>>> >>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>>> >>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>>> >>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>>> >>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>>> >>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>>> >>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>>> >>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>>> >>> whatever issues we find.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks!
>>> >>> Kyle
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ___
>>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> >>
>>> >> ___
>>> >> 

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[trinath.soman...@freescale.com]

Hi Mestery

With respect to the new BP review process, can we start submitting the BPs in 
the review system and in the launchpad. 

Since, BP is a thought process of the developer either for core dev or for 
vendor specific dev,
can you give some light on how the review process of the BP can be ?

asciiflow.com is a best tool for showing the pictorial representation of the BP 
work. Thank you for the link..

Were there any variations in general code review processes.

-
Trinath


From: Kyle Mestery 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:22 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

Actually, +1 to that Salvatore! I've found asciiflow.com to be superb
for these types of things.

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando  wrote:
> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about asciiflow.com
> first!
>
>
> On 16 April 2014 15:09, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem is that your spec should be at the toplevel of the
>> juno directory, and that's why the UT is failing. Can you move your
>> spec up a level, including the image? You can create a spec images
>> directory to put them in there and reference it in the spec as well if
>> you want.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
>>  wrote:
>> > What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
>> > directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
>> > allow it):
>> >
>> > specs/juno//.rst
>> > specs/juno//images/.png
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > ~Sumit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin 
>> > wrote:
>> >> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
>> >> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> >>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> >>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> >>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>> >>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> >>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> >>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>> >>>
>> >>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> >>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> >>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>> >>> whatever issues we find.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>> Kyle
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> > ___
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Solly Ross]

Additionally, storing lots of binary blobs in a Git repo is sub-optimal,
as the repo size ballons very quickly.  Storing images on the Wiki, or
elsewhere that has stable image hosting, is a much better solution, IMHO
(but try asciiflow or asciiflow traditional first!).

Best Regards,
Solly Ross

- Original Message -
From: "Kyle Mestery" 
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:52:09 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

Actually, +1 to that Salvatore! I've found asciiflow.com to be superb
for these types of things.

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando  wrote:
> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about asciiflow.com
> first!
>
>
> On 16 April 2014 15:09, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem is that your spec should be at the toplevel of the
>> juno directory, and that's why the UT is failing. Can you move your
>> spec up a level, including the image? You can create a spec images
>> directory to put them in there and reference it in the spec as well if
>> you want.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
>>  wrote:
>> > What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
>> > directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
>> > allow it):
>> >
>> > specs/juno//.rst
>> > specs/juno//images/.png
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > ~Sumit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin 
>> > wrote:
>> >> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
>> >> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> >>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> >>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> >>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>> >>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> >>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> >>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>> >>>
>> >>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> >>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> >>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>> >>> whatever issues we find.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>> Kyle
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> > ___
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Russell Bryant]

On 04/16/2014 09:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about
> asciiflow.com  first!

In all seriousness, I think that's a very nice solution for simple
diagrams.  :-)

For other diagrams, I wonder if it makes sense to just upload them to
the wiki and include links to them from the spec using the image directive.

-- 
Russell Bryant

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

Actually, +1 to that Salvatore! I've found asciiflow.com to be superb
for these types of things.

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando  wrote:
> if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about asciiflow.com
> first!
>
>
> On 16 April 2014 15:09, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem is that your spec should be at the toplevel of the
>> juno directory, and that's why the UT is failing. Can you move your
>> spec up a level, including the image? You can create a spec images
>> directory to put them in there and reference it in the spec as well if
>> you want.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
>>  wrote:
>> > What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
>> > directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
>> > allow it):
>> >
>> > specs/juno//.rst
>> > specs/juno//images/.png
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > ~Sumit.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin 
>> > wrote:
>> >> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
>> >> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> >>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> >>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> >>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>> >>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> >>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> >>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>> >>>
>> >>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> >>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> >>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>> >>> whatever issues we find.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>> Kyle
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>> > ___
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Salvatore Orlando]

if the image you're adding is a diagram, I would think about asciiflow.comfirst!


On 16 April 2014 15:09, Kyle Mestery  wrote:

> I think the problem is that your spec should be at the toplevel of the
> juno directory, and that's why the UT is failing. Can you move your
> spec up a level, including the image? You can create a spec images
> directory to put them in there and reference it in the spec as well if
> you want.
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
>  wrote:
> > What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
> > directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
> > allow it):
> >
> > specs/juno//.rst
> > specs/juno//images/.png
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ~Sumit.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin 
> wrote:
> >> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
> >> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery <
> mest...@noironetworks.com> wrote:
> >>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> >>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> >>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> >>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
> >>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> >>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> >>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
> >>>
> >>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> >>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> >>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> >>> whatever issues we find.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> Kyle
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >> ___
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > ___
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

I think the problem is that your spec should be at the toplevel of the
juno directory, and that's why the UT is failing. Can you move your
spec up a level, including the image? You can create a spec images
directory to put them in there and reference it in the spec as well if
you want.

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Sumit Naiksatam
 wrote:
> What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
> directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
> allow it):
>
> specs/juno//.rst
> specs/juno//images/.png
>
> Thanks,
> ~Sumit.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
>> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
>> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
>> wrote:
>>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>>
>>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>>> whatever issues we find.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Kyle
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>>>
>>> ___
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[mar...@redhat.com]

On 16/04/14 00:07, Kyle Mestery wrote:
> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,


fwiw, tripleo is discussing the adoption of this practice for the coming
cycle (and looks very likely to do so)

marios

> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
> 
> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> whatever issues we find.
> 
> Thanks!
> Kyle
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
> 
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Gary Kotton]

+1



On 4/16/14 1:35 AM, "Carl Baldwin"  wrote:

>+1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
>the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>
>On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery 
>wrote:
>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>
>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>> whatever issues we find.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kyle
>>
>> [1] 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://wiki.openstack.org/wik
>>i/Blueprints%23Neutron&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=eH0pxTUZo8NP
>>ZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D%0A&m=MyzVItNCAzhBG2AUe%2FpCJRMnHjrDq
>>gITgT1fkxc3s0k%3D%0A&s=caf23da791f6776beb0a12441650f4969ebdd9aa9f35d27f56
>>0ad144c12bf354
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.openstack.org/cgi
>>-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r
>>=eH0pxTUZo8NPZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D%0A&m=MyzVItNCAzhBG2AUe%
>>2FpCJRMnHjrDqgITgT1fkxc3s0k%3D%0A&s=08c9066de11d376ded51257f7210d3172284f
>>89c5f46cee9e273f10897f52500
>
>___
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-
>bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=e
>H0pxTUZo8NPZyF6hgoMQu%2BfDtysg45MkPhCZFxPEq8%3D%0A&m=MyzVItNCAzhBG2AUe%2Fp
>CJRMnHjrDqgITgT1fkxc3s0k%3D%0A&s=08c9066de11d376ded51257f7210d3172284f89c5
>f46cee9e273f10897f52500


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Sumit Naiksatam]

What's the convention for adding images to the patch? The following
directory structure seemed logical to me (but the current UT will not
allow it):

specs/juno//.rst
specs/juno//images/.png

Thanks,
~Sumit.



On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Carl Baldwin  wrote:
> +1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
> the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  
> wrote:
>> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
>> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
>> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
>> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
>> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
>> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
>> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>>
>> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
>> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
>> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
>> whatever issues we find.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Kyle
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>>
>> ___
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Carl Baldwin]

+1.  I think we'll like this process better.  I hope to have some of
the first blueprints to propose to the new repository very soon.

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kyle Mestery  wrote:
> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>
> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> whatever issues we find.
>
> Thanks!
> Kyle
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Nachi Ueno]

+10 !

2014-04-15 15:07 GMT-07:00 Kyle Mestery :
> Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
> their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
> sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
> instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
> this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
> you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
> to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].
>
> Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
> anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
> this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
> whatever issues we find.
>
> Thanks!
> Kyle
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron BP review process for Juno

[Kyle Mestery]

Given the success the Nova team has had in handling reviews using
their new nova-specs gerrit repository, I think it makes a lot of
sense for Neutron to do the same. With this in mind, I've added
instructions to the BP wiki [1] for how to do. Going forward in Juno,
this is how Neutron BPs will be handled by the Neutron core team. If
you are currently working on a BP or code for Juno which is attached
to a BP, please file the BP using the process here [1].

Given this is our first attempt at using this for reviews, I
anticipate there may be a few hiccups along the way. Please reply on
this thread or reach out in #openstack-neutron and we'll sort through
whatever issues we find.

Thanks!
Kyle

[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Neutron

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev