[openstack-dev] [searchlight] Feature request and bug workflow

[Tripp, Travis S]

Searchlighters,

When we began this project, we had many discussions about process and made a 
conscious decision to support as lightweight of a workflow for feature requests 
as possible. We all discussed how we want to encourage contribution from 
everybody by supporting both developers and non-developers who want to provide 
input, requests for features, and bug fixes. Specifically, we decided that we 
did not want to immediately use a separate spec repo and to try to better 
incorporate our normal documentation repo into the feature request process 
whenever Launchpad didn’t meet our needs.

We did not formally document any of the above, mostly because we didn’t have 
time in Liberty, but also because the concept was still a little nebulous on 
how we would better incorporate our normal documentation processes into the 
feature request process.

Now that we are starting Mitaka, I’ve already encountered a couple of features 
where I felt that we needed a better review tool (e.g. gerrit) than launchpad. 
So, I’ve made an attempt [1] at documenting how we can still follow our 
original intents that I mention above. I also have a dependent feature review 
that follows this process as an example [2].

Please take a look at the workflow proposal review and provide comments. We 
also will discuss this in our weekly meeting. I recommend starting with this 
file: doc/source/feature-requests-bugs.rst

[1] Workflow Proposal - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243881/
[2] Zero Downtime Feature - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243386/


Steve,

Regarding you email [3] below.  I feel that the associated blueprint is an 
example of a blueprint that could benefit from a similar Gerrit review as 
described above. What do you think?

[3] Admin indexing - 
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cloud.openstack.devel/68685

Thanks,
Travis
__
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] [searchlight] Feature request and bug workflow

[McLellan, Steven]

I've already spoken to you about this and I think everyone would agree
that for large features blueprints are cumbersome; my preference would be
for simple blueprints (uncontroversial and straightforward from a design
perspective) to leave a full description in launchpad but for larger ones
to link to a review (and possibly update launchpad once the feature's been
agreed upon). The admin indexing work is one that would benefit from
having reviews in gerrit.

Steve

On 11/11/15, 12:50 PM, "Tripp, Travis S"  wrote:

>Searchlighters,
>
>When we began this project, we had many discussions about process and
>made a conscious decision to support as lightweight of a workflow for
>feature requests as possible. We all discussed how we want to encourage
>contribution from everybody by supporting both developers and
>non-developers who want to provide input, requests for features, and bug
>fixes. Specifically, we decided that we did not want to immediately use a
>separate spec repo and to try to better incorporate our normal
>documentation repo into the feature request process whenever Launchpad
>didn¹t meet our needs.
>
>We did not formally document any of the above, mostly because we didn¹t
>have time in Liberty, but also because the concept was still a little
>nebulous on how we would better incorporate our normal documentation
>processes into the feature request process.
>
>Now that we are starting Mitaka, I¹ve already encountered a couple of
>features where I felt that we needed a better review tool (e.g. gerrit)
>than launchpad. So, I¹ve made an attempt [1] at documenting how we can
>still follow our original intents that I mention above. I also have a
>dependent feature review that follows this process as an example [2].
>
>Please take a look at the workflow proposal review and provide comments.
>We also will discuss this in our weekly meeting. I recommend starting
>with this file: doc/source/feature-requests-bugs.rst
>
>[1] Workflow Proposal - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243881/
>[2] Zero Downtime Feature - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243386/
>
>
>Steve,
>
>Regarding you email [3] below.  I feel that the associated blueprint is
>an example of a blueprint that could benefit from a similar Gerrit review
>as described above. What do you think?
>
>[3] Admin indexing -
>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cloud.openstack.devel/68685
>
>Thanks,
>Travis
>__
>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