I'd like to suggest two things. Firstly a section on scale (as opposed to performance).
Secondly, I'd like to see additional hard requirements that will be added to drivers called out (e.g. a 'Driver Impact' section). -Rob On 19 May 2014 10:03, Devananda van der Veen <devananda....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > As with several other projects, and as discussed at the summit, Ironic is > moving to a formal / specs-based design process. The reasons for this have > been well summarized in previous email threads in other projects [*], but in > short, it's because, until now, nearly all our blueprints lacked a design > specification which could be compared to the proposed code, resulting in the > code-review also being a design-review. This week, I will be resetting the > "Definition" status of all blueprints to "New", and require everything to go > through a specs review process -- yes, even the ones that were previously > approved. > > I've proposed the creation of the openstack/ironic-specs repo here: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94113/ > > And put up an initial version on github to start the process: > https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs > https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst > > I've begun sketching out specs proposals for some of the essential-for-juno > items, which can be found in the above repo for now, and will be proposed > for review once the openstack/ironic-specs repository is created. > > For what it's worth, I based this on the Nova specs repo, with some > customization geared towards Ironic (eg, I removed "notifications" section > and added some comments regarding hardware). At this point, I'd like > feedback from other core reviewers and folks familiar with the specs > process. Please think about the types of architectural changes you look for > during code reviews and make sure the specs template addresses them, and > that they apply to Ironic. > > I will focus on creating and landing the specs for items essential for > graduation first and then prioritize review of additional feature specs > based on the community feedback we received at the Juno Design Summit. I > will send another email soliciting the community members and vendors to > propose specs for the features they are working on once the initial work on > the repo is complete (hopefully before end-of-week). > > Regards, > Devananda > > > [*] eg.: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032753.html > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- 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