Add specs dir
Currently we do not have a dib-specific specs repository. Technically, we are part of the tripleo-specs repository but dib-core does not imply tripleo-specs core. To fix this and to encourage the use of specs lets create a specs process that lives right in tree. Change-Id: I7bd7e9fa94635621590f72702107e218155fef2a
This commit is contained in:
Gregory Haynes
parent
908ca1d079
commit
b59ae02431
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
|||
=======
|
||||
README
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
diskimage-builder Specifications
|
||||
================================
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
This directory is used to hold approved design specifications for changes to
|
||||
the diskimage-builder project. Reviews of the specs are done in gerrit, using a
|
||||
similar workflow to how we review and merge changes to the code itself. For
|
||||
specific policies around specification review, refer to the end of this
|
||||
document.
|
||||
|
||||
The layout of this directory is::
|
||||
|
||||
specs/v<major_version>/
|
||||
|
||||
Where there are two sub-directories:
|
||||
|
||||
- specs/v<major_version>/approved: specifications approved but not yet
|
||||
implemented
|
||||
- specs/v<major_version>/implemented: implemented specifications
|
||||
- specs/v<major_version>/backlog: unassigned specifications
|
||||
|
||||
The lifecycle of a specification
|
||||
--------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Developers proposing a specification should propose a new file in the
|
||||
``approved`` directory. diskimage-builder-core will review the change in the
|
||||
usual manner for the project, and eventually it will get merged if a consensus
|
||||
is reached.
|
||||
|
||||
When a specification has been implemented either the developer or someone
|
||||
from diskimage-builder-core will move the implemented specification from the
|
||||
``approved`` directory to the ``implemented`` directory. It is important to
|
||||
create redirects when this is done so that existing links to the approved
|
||||
specification are not broken. Redirects aren't symbolic links, they are
|
||||
defined in a file which sphinx consumes. An example is at
|
||||
``specs/v1/redirects``.
|
||||
|
||||
This directory structure allows you to see what we thought about doing,
|
||||
decided to do, and actually got done. Users interested in functionality in a
|
||||
given release should only refer to the ``implemented`` directory.
|
||||
|
||||
Example specifications
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
You can find an example spec in ``specs/template.rst``.
|
||||
|
||||
Backlog specifications
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Additionally, we allow the proposal of specifications that do not have a
|
||||
developer assigned to them. These are proposed for review in the same manner as
|
||||
above, but are added to::
|
||||
|
||||
specs/backlog/approved
|
||||
|
||||
Specifications in this directory indicate the original author has either
|
||||
become unavailable, or has indicated that they are not going to implement the
|
||||
specification. The specifications found here are available as projects for
|
||||
people looking to get involved with diskimage-builder. If you are interested in
|
||||
claiming a spec, start by posting a review for the specification that moves it
|
||||
from this directory to the next active release. Please set yourself as the new
|
||||
`primary assignee` and maintain the original author in the `other contributors`
|
||||
list.
|
||||
|
||||
Specification review policies
|
||||
=============================
|
||||
|
||||
There are some special review policies which diskimage-builder-core will apply
|
||||
when reviewing proposed specifications. They are:
|
||||
|
||||
Trivial specifications
|
||||
----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed changes which are trivial (very small amounts of code) and don't
|
||||
change any of our public APIs are sometimes not required to provide a
|
||||
specification. The decision of whether something is trivial or not is a
|
||||
judgement made by the author or by consensus of the project cores, generally
|
||||
trying to err on the side of spec creation.
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
|
|||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
==============================================
|
||||
Example Spec - The title of your specification
|
||||
==============================================
|
||||
|
||||
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of
|
||||
prose that operators can understand. The title and this first paragraph
|
||||
should be used as the subject line and body of the commit message
|
||||
respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about the diskimage-bulider spec process:
|
||||
|
||||
* Not all changes need a spec. For more information see
|
||||
<add_url_here>
|
||||
|
||||
* The aim of this document is first to define the problem we need to solve,
|
||||
and second agree the overall approach to solve that problem.
|
||||
|
||||
* This is not intended to be extensive documentation for a new feature.
|
||||
|
||||
* You should aim to get your spec approved before writing your code.
|
||||
While you are free to write prototypes and code before getting your spec
|
||||
approved, its possible that the outcome of the spec review process leads
|
||||
you towards a fundamentally different solution than you first envisaged.
|
||||
|
||||
* But, API changes are held to a much higher level of scrutiny.
|
||||
As soon as an API change merges, we must assume it could be in production
|
||||
somewhere, and as such, we then need to support that API change forever.
|
||||
To avoid getting that wrong, we do want lots of details about API changes
|
||||
upfront.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about using this template:
|
||||
|
||||
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
||||
|
||||
* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
|
||||
|
||||
* 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
|
||||
|
||||
* 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 inline feedback on the diagram itself.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
A detailed description of the problem. What problem is this blueprint
|
||||
addressing?
|
||||
|
||||
Use Cases
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
What use cases does this address? What impact on actors does this change have?
|
||||
Ensure you are clear about the actors in each use case: Developer, End User,
|
||||
etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
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?
|
||||
|
||||
At this point, if you would like to just get feedback on if the problem and
|
||||
proposed change fit in diskimage-builder, you can stop here and post this for
|
||||
review to get preliminary feedback. If so please say:
|
||||
Posting to get preliminary feedback on the scope of this spec.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
What other ways could we do this thing? Why aren't we using those? 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.
|
||||
|
||||
API impact
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe how this will effect our public interfaces. Will this be adding new
|
||||
environment variables? Deprecating existing ones? Adding a new command line
|
||||
argument?
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential security impact on the system.
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Aside from the API, are there other ways a user will interact with this
|
||||
feature?
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential performance impact on the system, for example
|
||||
how often will new code be called, does it perform any intense processing
|
||||
or data manipulation.
|
||||
|
||||
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>
|
||||
|
||||
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 in diskimage-builder or in other
|
||||
projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
|
||||
|
||||
* If this requires functionality of another project that is not currently used
|
||||
by diskimage-builder document that fact.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Please discuss the important scenarios needed to test here, as well as
|
||||
specific edge cases we should be ensuring work correctly. For each
|
||||
scenario please specify if this requires specialized hardware, or software.
|
||||
|
||||
Is this untestable in gate given current limitations (specific hardware /
|
||||
software configurations available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (gate
|
||||
enhancements, etc).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
Which audiences are affected most by this change, and which documentation
|
||||
files need to be changed. Do we need to add information about this change to
|
||||
the developer guide, the user guide, certain elements, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
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 notes from a summit session
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to relevant research, if appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
* Related specifications as appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue