On 9/4/2014 4:21 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
One final note: the specs referenced above didn't get approved until
Spec Freeze, which seemed to leave me with less time to implement
things. In fact, it seemed that a lot of specs didn't get approved
until spec freeze. Perhaps if we had more staggered approval of
specs, we'd have more staggered submission of patches, and thus less of a
sudden influx of patches in the couple weeks before feature proposal
freeze.
Yeah I think the specs were getting approved too late into the cycle, I was
actually surprised at how far out the schedules were going in allowing things
in and then allowing exceptions after that.
Hopefully the ideas around priorities/slots/runways will help stagger some of
this also.
I think there is a problem with the pattern that seemed to emerge in June where
the J.1 period was taken up with spec review (a lot of good reviews happened
early in that period, but the approvals kind of came in a lump at the end)
meaning that the implementation work itself only seemed to really kick in
during J.2 - and not surprisingly given the complexity of some of the changes
ran late into J.3.
We also has previously noted didn’t do any prioritization between those specs
that were approved - so it was always going to be a race to who managed to get
code up for review first.
It kind of feels to me as if the ideal model would be if we were doing spec
review for K now (i.e during the FF / stabilization period) so that we hit
Paris with a lot of the input already registered and a clear idea of the range
of things folks want to do. We shouldn't really have to ask for session
suggestions for the summit - they should be something that can be extracted
from the proposed specs (maybe we do voting across the specs or something like
that). In that way the summit would be able to confirm the list of specs for
K and the priority order.
With the current state of the review queue maybe we can’t quite hit this
pattern for K, but would be worth aspiring to for I ?
Phil
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
I like the idea of having our ducks somewhat in a row for the summit so
we can hash out details in design sessions on high-priority specs and
reserve time for figuring out what the priorities are. I think that
would go a long way in fixing some of the frustrations in the other
thread about the mid-cycle meetups being the place where blueprint
issues are hashed out rather than the summit, and the design sessions at
the summit not feeling productive.
But as noted, there is also a feeling right now of focusing on Juno to
get that out the door before anyone starts getting distracted with
reviewing Kilo specs. And I suppose once Juno is finished no one is
going to want to talk about Kilo for awhile due to burnout.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
