diff --git a/doc/source/specs/README.rst b/doc/source/specs/README.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2840b9b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/source/specs/README.rst @@ -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/ + +Where there are two sub-directories: + +- specs/v/approved: specifications approved but not yet + implemented +- specs/v/implemented: implemented specifications +- specs/v/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. diff --git a/doc/source/specs/v1/approved/v1-template.rst b/doc/source/specs/v1/approved/v1-template.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c54fe2db --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/source/specs/v1/approved/v1-template.rst @@ -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 + + +* 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: + + +Other contributors: + + +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