Difference between revisions of "Ironic/Specs Process"
(→Ironic Specs Process) |
(→Ironic Specs Process) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Specifications must follow the template which can be found at [https://github.com/openstack/ironic-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst specs/template.rst], which is quite self-documenting. Specifications are proposed for a given release by adding them to the specs/<release> directory and posting it for review to Gerrit. The implementation status of a blueprint for a given release can be found by looking at the blueprint in launchpad. Once approved, the blueprint should include the URL to the specification. | Specifications must follow the template which can be found at [https://github.com/openstack/ironic-specs/blob/master/specs/template.rst specs/template.rst], which is quite self-documenting. Specifications are proposed for a given release by adding them to the specs/<release> directory and posting it for review to Gerrit. The implementation status of a blueprint for a given release can be found by looking at the blueprint in launchpad. Once approved, the blueprint should include the URL to the specification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Starting with the Kilo cycle, the specification process is slightly different [1]. | ||
Specifications have to be re-proposed for every release. The review may be quick, but even if something was previously approved, it should be re-reviewed to make sure it still makes sense as written. | Specifications have to be re-proposed for every release. The review may be quick, but even if something was previously approved, it should be re-reviewed to make sure it still makes sense as written. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
The [https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/352,members list of core reviewers] for the specifications is small but mighty. (This is not necessarily the same list of core reviewers for code patches.) | The [https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/352,members list of core reviewers] for the specifications is small but mighty. (This is not necessarily the same list of core reviewers for code patches.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/041960.html | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 18 August 2014
Ironic Specs Process
Starting with Juno cycle, Ironic has adopted a new specification approval process, based on that of Nova. As previously, you start with getting your blueprint into launchpad. Then you use the same Gerrit process as with source code, using special repository ironic-specs, to add the specification.
Specifications must follow the template which can be found at specs/template.rst, which is quite self-documenting. Specifications are proposed for a given release by adding them to the specs/<release> directory and posting it for review to Gerrit. The implementation status of a blueprint for a given release can be found by looking at the blueprint in launchpad. Once approved, the blueprint should include the URL to the specification.
Starting with the Kilo cycle, the specification process is slightly different [1].
Specifications have to be re-proposed for every release. The review may be quick, but even if something was previously approved, it should be re-reviewed to make sure it still makes sense as written.
You are welcome to submit patches associated with a blueprint, but they will have a -2 ("do not merge") until the specification has been approved. This is to ensure that the patches don't get accidentally merged beforehand. You will still be able to get reviewer feedback and push new patch sets, even with a -2.
The list of core reviewers for the specifications is small but mighty. (This is not necessarily the same list of core reviewers for code patches.)
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/041960.html
