Tracking ML2 Subgroup Reviews
The guideline for updating this wiki is at the end of this page
Specs proposed to Kilo Release
For categories, please see the description at the bottom.
|Modular L2 Agent||banix||Under development|
|ofagent: sub driver||BP||yamamoto||probably some overlap with modular l2 agent|
- The owner of a given spec is responsible for keeping the corresponding row in this table up to date
- A reviewer can add her name to the table when she reviews a spec but ultimately the spec owner needs to make sure the information is up to date
- Use the following strings for priority: "1 (High)", "2 (Med)", "3 (Low)" so we can easily sort the table based on the priority if need be
- If not sure, insert the spec with priority set to 3 (Low)
- The priority of specs were decided to be defined as follows (IRC Log):
- So mestery suggests vendor-specific drivers should be at low priority, consistent with vendor plugins and vendor service drivers
- The ML2 team can identify 2 or 3 BPs to treat as high priority
- These need to be of general community interest, and really important to complete for Juno
- And we can identify several more BPs to treat as medium priority, which also should be of general community interest
- Common: ML2 common features : features which affects ML2 plugin core or are required by multiple drivers
- OVS: Open vSwitch mechanism driver / agent : features specific to OVS mech driver or OVS agent. Some blueprints are proposed only for OVS but they are sometimes common to ML2 plugin. I prepared a separate category for OVS (amotoki).
- Driver: ML2 mechanism driver specific : features specific to a driver
- Should we do the same for regular (not specs) neutron reviews? Will that be too much? We can wait and see if the current table will be used and if it will make the review process any better and then decide.
- Any changes we can make to Launchpad and/or Gerrit review that will make the tracking of the specs easier and that will make using a table like this unnecessary?