openstack
/
glance-specs
Code Issues Proposed changes

Update README in glance-specs repo 

This commit updates the README in the glance-specs repo to include
information about the 'approved' and 'implemented' subdirectories
added for the Mitaka release.

Change-Id: Ibb83f56b2b37a5b96318e0a1a5669e774cf28568
This commit is contained in:
bria4010 2016-02-05 16:51:15 -05:00
parent 4a9ffb4d06
commit 0ad059e6ed
1 changed files with 16 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
README.rst
View File

@ -1,21 +1,30 @@
==================================
===============================
OpenStack Glance Specifications
==================================
===============================
This git repository is used to hold approved design specifications for additions
to the Glance project. Reviews of the specs are done in gerrit, using a
similar workflow to how we review and merge changes to the code itself.
The layout of this repository is::
The general layout of this repository is::
specs/<release>/
You can find an example spec in `specs/template.rst`.
Specifications are proposed for a given release by adding them to the
`specs/<release>` directory and posting it for review. The implementation
status of a blueprint for a given release can be found by looking at the
blueprint in launchpad. Not all approved blueprints will get fully implemented.
Beginning with the Mitaka release, there is a further subdivision into
specs/<release>/approved
specs/<release>/implemented
A specification is proposed for a given release by adding it to the
`specs/<release>/approved` directory and posting it for review. The
implementation status of a blueprint for a given release can be found by
looking at the blueprint in launchpad. Not all approved blueprints will get
fully implemented.
When a feature has been completed, its specification will be moved to the
'implemented' directory for the release in which it was implemented.
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