openstack
/
tripleo-specs
Code Issues Proposed changes

Spec review: additional note on when to +2 

There was a question during the Nov 29 weekly meeting [1] about when is
it ok to +2 a spec, when the other parts do not relate to one's area of
expertise but also to others. This includes the answer proposed into
the policy.

Also, change 'devtest' to 'undercloud install' to reflect the tooling
update.

[1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2016/tripleo.2016-11-29-14.00.log.html

Change-Id: I12c4cdd6c61188a570b8d891d30af36bac794157
This commit is contained in:
Julie Pichon 2016-12-06 15:20:04 +01:00
parent ed579dacc4
commit d377b3834b
1 changed files with 11 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
specs/policy/spec-review.rst
View File

@ -2,6 +2,9 @@
Spec Review Process
=========================
Document the existing process to help reviewers, especially newcomers,
understand how to review specs. This is migrating the existing wiki
documentation into a policy.
Problem Description
===================
@ -64,8 +67,8 @@ reviewing and approving specs.
technical details that not everyone will grasp, the overall
proposed change should be able to be understood by folks generally
familiar with TripleO. Someone who is generally familiar with
TripleO is likely someone who has run through devtest, perhaps
contributed some code, or participated in reviews.
TripleO is likely someone who has run through the undercloud
install, perhaps contributed some code, or participated in reviews.
* To aid in comprehension, grammar nits should generally be corrected
when they have been pointed out. Be aware though that even nits can
cause disagreements, as folks pointing out nits may be wrong
@ -93,6 +96,11 @@ reviewing and approving specs.
* A +1 on a spec from a core reviewer indicates that the core
reviewer is not necessarily committing to review that spec's
patches.
* It's fine to +2 even if the spec also relates to other repositories
and areas of expertise, in addition to the reviewer's own. We
probably would not want to merge any spec that spanned multiple
specialties without a representative from each group adding their
+2.
* Have any additional (perhaps non-core) reviewers volunteered to
review patches that implement the spec?
* There should be a sufficient number of core reviewers who have
@ -119,7 +127,7 @@ Primary author:
james-slagle (from the wiki history)
Other contributors:
None
jpichon
Milestones
----------