packetary-specs/specs/template.rst

Example Spec - The title of your blueprint

Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/packetary/+spec/example

Introduction paragraph -- why is it necessary to do anything? A single paragraph of prose that reviewers can understand.

Some notes about using this template:

• Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
• Please wrap text at 79 columns.
• The spec should be gender neutral and written in the third person aspect
• The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for example a URL of: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/packetary/+spec/awesome-thing should be named awesome-thing.rst
• Please do not delete any of the sections in this template. If you have nothing to say for a whole section, just write: None
• For help with syntax, see http://sphinx-doc.org/rest.html
• To test out your formatting, build the docs using tox, or see: http://rst.ninjs.org
• If you would like to provide a diagram with your spec, ASCII diagrams are required. http://asciiflow.com/ is a very nice tool to assist with making ASCII diagrams. The reason for this is that the tool used to review specs is based purely on plain text. Plain text will allow review to proceed without having to look at additional files which can not be viewed in Gerrit. It will also allow in-line feedback on the diagram itself.

Problem description

A detailed description of the problem:

• For a new feature this might be use cases. Ensure you are clear about the actors in each use case: End User vs Deploy engineer
• For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the problems in that feature that are being addressed.

Proposed changes

Here is where you cover the change you propose to make in detail. How do you propose to solve this problem?

If this is one part of a larger effort make it clear where this piece ends. In other words, what's the scope of this effort?

Alternatives

What are other ways of achieving the same results? Why aren't they followed? This doesn't have to be a full literature review, but it should demonstrate that thought has been put into why the proposed solution is an appropriate one.

Implementation

Assignee(s)

Who is leading the writing of the code? Or is this a blueprint where you're throwing it out there to see who picks it up?

If more than one person is working on the implementation, please designate the primary author and contact.

Primary assignee:

<launchpad-id or None>

Other contributors:

<launchpad-id or None>

Mandatory design review:

<launchpad-id or None>

Work Items

Work items or tasks -- break the feature up into the things that need to be done to implement it. Those parts might end up being done by different people, but we're mostly trying to understand the timeline for implementation.

Dependencies

• Include specific references to specs and/or blueprints in Packetary, or in other projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
• Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not included in Packetary? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?

References

Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your references are unavailable. Examples of what you could include are:

• Links to mailing list or IRC discussions
• Links to relevant research, if appropriate
• Related specifications as appropriate
• Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to