[openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs is open for Stein

Hey all, Just wanted to give a quick heads up that the nova-specs repo [1] is now open for Stein spec proposals. Here's a link to the docs on the spec process: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/readme.html Cheers, -melanie [1] https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs review tracking etherpad

On 3/23/2016 4:14 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: I've started an etherpad [1] similar to what we had in mitaka. There are some useful review links in the top for open reviews and fast-approve re-proposals. I'm also trying to keep a list of how many things we're re-approving since that's our backlog

[openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs review tracking etherpad

I've started an etherpad [1] similar to what we had in mitaka. There are some useful review links in the top for open reviews and fast-approve re-proposals. I'm also trying to keep a list of how many things we're re-approving since that's our backlog from mitaka (and some further back). I'd li

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs for Kilo?

Thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. On Sep 11, 2014, at 12:38 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 09/11/2014 01:32 AM, Joe Cropper wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> Just wondering if the nova-specs master branch will have a ‘kilo’ >> directory created soon for Kilo proposals? I have a few things I’d li

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs for Kilo?

On 09/11/2014 01:32 AM, Joe Cropper wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Just wondering if the nova-specs master branch will have a ‘kilo’ > directory created soon for Kilo proposals? I have a few things I’d like > to submit, just looking for the proper home. There's some more info on that here: http://lists.

[openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs for Kilo?

Hi Folks, Just wondering if the nova-specs master branch will have a ‘kilo’ directory created soon for Kilo proposals? I have a few things I’d like to submit, just looking for the proper home. Thanks, Joe ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

On Apr 23, 2014, at 17:15, Michael Still wrote: > I don't think we should block the possibility of there being a > novaclient specific BP sometime in the future. When we think of a good > reason for one, let's just put it in a subdirectory. I agree. For example, this blueprint is about improvin

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Michael Still wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Russell Bryant > wrote: > > > John originally mentioned this on the review, but Phil and I both seem > > to agree. > > > > Most novaclient work can just be a work item of a nova blueprint. How > > about we

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > John originally mentioned this on the review, but Phil and I both seem > to agree. > > Most novaclient work can just be a work item of a nova blueprint. How > about we just handle it that way? For those cases where that's true I agree th

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

On 04/22/2014 08:24 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Jay Pipes > wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 17:00 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > > > Several folks have submitted python-novaclient blueprints to nov

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

My biggest concern with your proof of concept is that it would require all outstanding blueprints to do a rebase, which sounds painful. Could we perhaps create a subdirectory for novaclient, and keep the nova stuff at the top level until most things have landed? Michael On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 17:00 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > > > Several folks have submitted python-novaclient blueprints to nova > > specs for the Juno Release [0][1], but since python-novaclient isn't > > part of the integrated re

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 17:00 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote: > Hi All, > > > Several folks have submitted python-novaclient blueprints to nova > specs for the Juno Release [0][1], but since python-novaclient isn't > part of the integrated release this doesn't really make sense. > Furthermore the template

[openstack-dev] [nova] nova-specs and python-novaclient

Hi All, Several folks have submitted python-novaclient blueprints to nova specs for the Juno Release [0][1], but since python-novaclient isn't part of the integrated release this doesn't really make sense. Furthermore the template we have has sections that make no sense for the client (such as 'RE

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

g, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, PRC From: Dan Smith To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" , Date: 04/17/2014 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs > I'm not asking for 100%

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

- From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com] Sent: 16 April 2014 19:57 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs > Do we really want to -1 for spelling mistake in nova-specs? I do, yes. These documents are intended to be rea

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Dan Smith wrote: >> Do we really want to -1 for spelling mistake in nova-specs? > > I do, yes. These documents are intended to be read by deployers and > future developers. I think it's really important that they're useful in > that regard. > >> This is really a ba

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On 04/16/2014 01:56 PM, Dan Smith wrote: >> Do we really want to -1 for spelling mistake in nova-specs? > > I do, yes. These documents are intended to be read by deployers and > future developers. I think it's really important that they're useful in > that regard. > >> This is really a bad news f

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

> Do we really want to -1 for spelling mistake in nova-specs? I do, yes. These documents are intended to be read by deployers and future developers. I think it's really important that they're useful in that regard. > This is really a bad news for non-native speaker like me because I'm > really n

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

> single comment they made was -1 worthy on its own. Often times I will -1 > for a spelling mistake and then make a bunch of other purely-opinion > comments which don't necessarily need to change. Do we really want to -1 for spelling mistake in nova-specs? This is really a bad news for non-native

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

> I'm not asking for 100% consistency. I'm just raising it since it seems > to be early in the process change and want to work out these kinds of > things. If it turns out to be an outlier then great. Sure, and the spec reviewers are learning in this process as well. It takes a certain amount of

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On 4/16/14 10:00 AM, "Dan Smith" wrote: >> There may be some consistency work needed. I spent some time/text in >> justification around no security impact in a spec. I was guided >> specifically that None was a better statement. > >I think you're referring to me. What I said was, you went int

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On 4/16/14 10:00 AM, "Dan Smith" wrote: > >Remember that just because someone -1s a patch, doesn't mean that every >single comment they made was -1 worthy on its own. Often times I will -1 >for a spelling mistake and then make a bunch of other purely-opinion >comments which don't necessarily ne

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On 04/16/2014 10:13 AM, Christopher Lefelhocz wrote: > I love that we are getting feedback from deployers/operations/etc. Thanks > to all who have spoken up in support from that perspective. > > On 4/16/14 4:02 AM, "Day, Phil" wrote: > >>> >> They are intended to be high level designs rather th

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

> There may be some consistency work needed. I spent some time/text in > justification around no security impact in a spec. I was guided > specifically that None was a better statement. I think you're referring to me. What I said was, you went into a lot of depth explaining why there was no secu

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

I love that we are getting feedback from deployers/operations/etc. Thanks to all who have spoken up in support from that perspective. On 4/16/14 4:02 AM, "Day, Phil" wrote: >> >They are intended to be high level designs rather than low level designs, >so no they don't have to include all of th

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

> On 04/15/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Elliott wrote: > >> * specs review. The new blueprint process is a work of genius, and I > >> think its already working better than what we've had in previous > >> releases. However, there are a lot of blueprints there in review, and > >> we need to focus on making s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

--- Original Message - From: "Sean Dague" To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:45:16 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs On 04/15/2014 11:42 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 04/15/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Elliott wrote: >>> * specs revi

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On 04/15/2014 11:42 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 04/15/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Elliott wrote: >>> * specs review. The new blueprint process is a work of genius, and I >>> think its already working better than what we've had in previous >>> releases. However, there are a lot of blueprints there in re

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] nova-specs

On 04/15/2014 11:01 AM, Brian Elliott wrote: >> * specs review. The new blueprint process is a work of genius, and I >> think its already working better than what we've had in previous >> releases. However, there are a lot of blueprints there in review, and >> we need to focus on making sure these