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.
A detailed description of the problem. What problem is this blueprint addressing?
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.
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.
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.
Describe how this will effect our public interfaces. Will this be adding new environment variables? Deprecating existing ones? Adding a new command line argument?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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