Added - https://github.com/devananda/ironic-specs/commit/7f34f353332ad5b26830dadc8c9f870df399feb7
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev