I've already spoken to you about this and I think everyone would agree that for large features blueprints are cumbersome; my preference would be for simple blueprints (uncontroversial and straightforward from a design perspective) to leave a full description in launchpad but for larger ones to link to a review (and possibly update launchpad once the feature's been agreed upon). The admin indexing work is one that would benefit from having reviews in gerrit.
Steve On 11/11/15, 12:50 PM, "Tripp, Travis S" <travis.tr...@hpe.com> wrote: >Searchlighters, > >When we began this project, we had many discussions about process and >made a conscious decision to support as lightweight of a workflow for >feature requests as possible. We all discussed how we want to encourage >contribution from everybody by supporting both developers and >non-developers who want to provide input, requests for features, and bug >fixes. Specifically, we decided that we did not want to immediately use a >separate spec repo and to try to better incorporate our normal >documentation repo into the feature request process whenever Launchpad >didn¹t meet our needs. > >We did not formally document any of the above, mostly because we didn¹t >have time in Liberty, but also because the concept was still a little >nebulous on how we would better incorporate our normal documentation >processes into the feature request process. > >Now that we are starting Mitaka, I¹ve already encountered a couple of >features where I felt that we needed a better review tool (e.g. gerrit) >than launchpad. So, I¹ve made an attempt [1] at documenting how we can >still follow our original intents that I mention above. I also have a >dependent feature review that follows this process as an example [2]. > >Please take a look at the workflow proposal review and provide comments. >We also will discuss this in our weekly meeting. I recommend starting >with this file: doc/source/feature-requests-bugs.rst > >[1] Workflow Proposal - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243881/ >[2] Zero Downtime Feature - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243386/ > > >Steve, > >Regarding you email [3] below. I feel that the associated blueprint is >an example of a blueprint that could benefit from a similar Gerrit review >as described above. What do you think? > >[3] Admin indexing - >http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cloud.openstack.devel/68685 > >Thanks, >Travis >__________________________________________________________________________ >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev