On 3/18/2016 5:46 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
Matt Riedemann <[email protected]> wrote on 03/16/2016 09:49:06
PM:
From: Matt Riedemann <[email protected]>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<[email protected]>
Date: 03/16/2016 09:50 PM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Reminder to move implemented nova
specs from mitaka
Specs are proposed to the 'approved' subdirectory and when they are
completely implemented in launchpad (the blueprint status is
'Implemented'), we should move the spec from the 'approved' subdirectory
to the 'implemented' subdirectory in the nova-specs repo.
For example:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248142/
These are the mitaka series blueprints from launchpad:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/mitaka
If anyone is really daring they could go through and move all of the
implemented ones in a single change.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
Is there a best practice how to handle a partially implemented bp (with
spec file)? For example [1] needs additional effort during Newton to
finish it.
References:
[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/centralize-config-options
Regards, Markus Zoeller (markus_z)
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
John was just telling me about this yesterday. I guess one thing we can
do is add a "(partial)" suffix to the title and mark the blueprint
complete for mitaka, and then the idea is to create a new blueprint for
newton for continuing the work, e.g. centralize-config-options-newton.
The idea being we show that something was completed in mitaka when
you're looking at blueprints in launchpad for mitaka.
I'm generally OK with that approach, the thing I don't really like is
when we have to re-propose specs and/or if there are dependent
blueprints in launchpad. Because creating the new blueprint means you
have to update the link in the spec when re-proposing it and you need to
update all of the dependent specs in launchpad for the new newton spec.
Maybe it's not a big deal, I can see benefits to either approach.
Personally I don't like to consider a blueprint complete until it's
actually complete, like has been the case with some of the cells v2
blueprints we've re-proposed for newton.
With long cleanup efforts like objects and config options though, I can
see how having release-specific blueprints is good.
Markus, so to answer your original question, :), I'd probably mark the
existing bp as complete for mitaka and create a new
centralize-config-options-newton blueprint.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
