Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 06:44:28AM +1200, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev +1 for tripleo-spec repo I like the idea of dedicated repo for design review process. -- Petr Blaho, pbl...@redhat.com Software Engineer ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 04/15/2014 08:44 PM, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? -Rob +1 and +1 to separate specs repo ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 2014/15/04 23:15, James Slagle wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. +1 for the approach. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? +1 from me. Think I'd prefer a separate repo for tripleo-specs though. +1 for separate repository. One thing that I don't think I saw called out specifically in the nova-specs thread was about keeping these spec and design documents updated. I'm guessing the plan around that would just be to submit updates in gerrit as patches, and then we can all review the updates as well. I think it's important that we try to keep them up to date and accurate as possible. +1 for gerrit reviews. I am having similar proposal for UX designs. I'd like to keep them stored and up to date with latest changes - also through the gerrit patches. -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 15/04/14 21:54, Ben Nemec wrote: On 04/15/2014 01:44 PM, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? -Rob +1 from me. We've also been planning to adopt this for Oslo. For anyone who hasn't been following the Nova discussion, here's a link to the original proposal: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html thanks Ben, this was useful to understand what was being proposed here. +1 from me fwiw and I also agree with others that it will be cleaner to have a stand-alone specs repo, thanks, marios There's also the more recent thread Monty referenced: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032753.html -Ben ___ 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] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 15/04/14 20:44, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? -Rob Nova (and now Neutron too) has documented their process at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Nova ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 04/15/2014 11:44 AM, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. ++ I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? In the current nova-specs thread on the ML, Tim Bell says: I think that there is also a need to verify the user story aspect. One of the great things with the ability to subscribe to nova-specs is that the community can give input early, when we can check on the need and the approach. I know from the CERN team how the requirements need to be reviewed early, not after the code has been written. Which is great. I'm mentioning it because he calls out the ability to subscribe to nova-specs. I think if you put them in incubator, then people who are wanting to fill a role like Tim - subscribing as an operator and validating user stories - might be a bit muddied by patches to other thigns. (although thanks for having a thought about less repos :) ) So I'd just vote, for whatever my vote is worth, for a tripleo-specs repo. Monty ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 04/15/2014 01:44 PM, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? -Rob +1 from me. We've also been planning to adopt this for Oslo. For anyone who hasn't been following the Nova discussion, here's a link to the original proposal: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/029232.html There's also the more recent thread Monty referenced: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032753.html -Ben ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
+1, I think it's a better medium for conversations than blueprints or wikis. I'm also +1 to a tripleo-specs repo, but that's less me having a problem with using incubator and more my OCD. On 04/15/2014 03:43 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: On 04/15/2014 11:44 AM, Robert Collins wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. ++ I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? In the current nova-specs thread on the ML, Tim Bell says: I think that there is also a need to verify the user story aspect. One of the great things with the ability to subscribe to nova-specs is that the community can give input early, when we can check on the need and the approach. I know from the CERN team how the requirements need to be reviewed early, not after the code has been written. Which is great. I'm mentioning it because he calls out the ability to subscribe to nova-specs. I think if you put them in incubator, then people who are wanting to fill a role like Tim - subscribing as an operator and validating user stories - might be a bit muddied by patches to other thigns. (although thanks for having a thought about less repos :) ) So I'd just vote, for whatever my vote is worth, for a tripleo-specs repo. Monty ___ 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] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? +1 from me. Think I'd prefer a separate repo for tripleo-specs though. One thing that I don't think I saw called out specifically in the nova-specs thread was about keeping these spec and design documents updated. I'm guessing the plan around that would just be to submit updates in gerrit as patches, and then we can all review the updates as well. I think it's important that we try to keep them up to date and accurate as possible. -- -- James Slagle -- ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][design] review based conceptual design process
On 16 April 2014 09:15, James Slagle james.sla...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: I've been watching the nova process, and I think its working out well - it certainly addresses: - making design work visible - being able to tell who has had input - and providing clear feedback to the designers I'd like to do the same thing for TripleO this cycle.. I'm thinking we can just add docs to incubator, since thats already a repository separate to our production code - what do folk think? +1 from me. Think I'd prefer a separate repo for tripleo-specs though. One thing that I don't think I saw called out specifically in the nova-specs thread was about keeping these spec and design documents updated. I'm guessing the plan around that would just be to submit updates in gerrit as patches, and then we can all review the updates as well. I think it's important that we try to keep them up to date and accurate as possible. So with the consistent 'and lets have a specs repo' response - cool. Can I get a volunteer to get it setup, please? -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
