On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 July 2014 07:11, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I almost fully agree with this last point. The bit I don't agree with is > > that there are some small refactor changes that aim to change a core > > piece of the project without any impact on the final user that are > > spec/blueprint worthy to explaining the motivation, expected results and > > drawbacks. > > > > To put it in another way. Developers are consumers of project's code, > > therefore the changes affecting the way developers interact with the > > code are also blueprint worth it, IMHO. > > The way I've been playing it on cinder is to ask for a spec if I'm > reviewing a patch that doesn't have one and I find myself questioning > the approach rather than the code. > > I think it is fair to say that core reviewers shouldn't be afraid to > ask for a spec at any time they think it will help, guidelines aside. > This allows contributors to attempt the lightweight process and skip > the spec if they don't expect to need one. > +1 This is exactly what I was hoping to see in Cinder at least. > > > -- > Duncan Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > 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
