On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 15:11 -0700, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > On 04/23/2014 05:09 PM, Jay S. Bryant wrote: > > All, > > > > I have gotten questions from our driver developers asking for details > > regarding the move to using cinder-specs for proposing Blueprints. I > > brought this topic up in today's Cinder Weekly Meeting, but the meeting > > was lightly attended so we decided to move the discussion here. > > > > I am going to put this note in the form of 'question' and proposed > > answer based on the brief discussion we had today. Note that the > > answers here are based on the assumption that we want to keep Cinder's > > use of 'specs' as close to Nova's as possible. I used the following > > mailing list thread as a starting point for some of these answers: > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032796.html > > > > Q: When is a spec approved? > > A: When it receives a +2 from the PTL and at least one other Core > > reviewer. > > > > Q: How long are specs valid for? > > A: For the duration of the release cycle. Any specs that are not > > approved during that period of type will need to be resubmitted for the > > subsequent release. > > > > Q: What will the spec template look like? > > A: This is one of the points I would like to discuss. The Nova template > > currently looks like this: > > https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst > > Do we want to follow the same template. In the interest of staying in > > sync with Nova's implementation I would say yes, but does this meet our > > needs? Are there other/different fields we want to consider to help for > > instances where the Blueprint is for a new driver or change to a driver? > > I think we might need, for instance, a 'Drivers Impacted' field. > I think for starters, we should use the same template until we find > it doesn't fit our needs. I just filed my first nova-spec bp > and rather liked the template and think it would be nice to have this > for Cinder.... cinder-spec.
Good to know Walter. I haven't been through the process yet. Glad to know you felt good about it. That is helpful to know > > > > > > Q: Will driver developers have to use the same template for functions in > > their drivers? > > A: Also a point I would like to discuss. Developers had asked if a more > > limited template would be used for changes going into the developer's > > driver. At first I thought maybe a different template for Blueprints > > against a driver might be appropriate, but after looking more closely at > > Nova's template perhaps that is not necessary. I would lean towards > > keeping one template, but maybe not requiring all fields depending on > > what our final template ends up looking like. > for now I vote for using the same template. The more I think about it, I agree. > > > > Q: Where do specs for python-cinderclient go? > > A: Looks like Nova has added a python-novaclient directory. I don't > > think we would need a separate python-cinderclient-specs repository but > > don't have a strong opinion on this point. > > > > I am sure this is not an exhaustive list of questions/answers at this > > point in time but I wanted to start the discussion so we could help move > > this process forward. I look forward to your feedback. > > > > -Jay Bryant > > [email protected] > > Freenode: jungleboyj > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
