2018-01-18 12:36 GMT-08:00 Doug Hellmann <[email protected]>: > Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-01-18 15:21:12 -0500: >> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 19:25:02 +0000: >> > >> > On 18/01/18 18:52, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > > Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 17:52:39 +0000: >> > >> On 18/01/18 16:25, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> > >>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 15:33:12 +0000: >> > >> >> > >> <snip/> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> In the past the QA team agreed to accept trademark-related tests from >> > >>> all projects in the tempest repo. Has that changed? >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> There has not been an explict rejection but in all conversations the >> > >> response has been "non core projects are outside the scope of tempest". >> > >> >> > >> Honestly, everytime we have tried to do something to core tempest >> > >> we have had major pushback, and I want to clarify this before I or >> > >> someone else put in the work of porting the base clients, getting CI >> > >> configured*, and proposing the tests to tempest. >> > > >> > > OK. >> > > >> > > The current policy doesn't say anything about "core" or different >> > > trademark programs or any other criteria. >> > > >> > > The TC therefore encourages the DefCore committee to consider it an >> > > indication of future technical direction that we do not want tests >> > > outside of the Tempest repository used for trademark enforcement, and >> > > that any new or existing tests that cover capabilities they want to >> > > consider for trademark enforcement should be placed in Tempest. >> > > >> > > That all seems very clear to me (setting aside some specific word >> > > choices like "future technical direction" that tie the resolution >> > > to language in the bylaws). Regardless of technical reasons why >> > > it may not be necessary, we still have many social justifications >> > > for doing it the way we originally set out to do it. Tests related >> > > to trademark enforcement need to go into the tempest repository. >> > > >> > > The way I think this should work (and the way I remember us describing >> > > it at the time the policy was established) is the Interop WG >> > > (previously DefCore) should identify capabilities and tests, then >> > > ask project teams to reproduce those tests in the tempest repo. >> > > When the tests land, they can be used by the trademark program. >> > > Teams can also, at their leisure, decide whether to remove the >> > > original versions of the tests from whatever repo they existed in >> > > to begin with. >> > > >> > > Graham, you've proposed a new resolution with several options for >> > > where to put tests for "add-on programs." I don't think we need >> > > that resolution if we want the tests to continue to live in tempest. >> > > The existing resolution doesn't qualify which tests, beyond "for >> > > trademark enforcement" and more words won't make that more clear, >> > > IMO. >> > > >> > > Now if you *do* want to change the policy, we should talk about >> > > that. But I can't tell whether you want to change it, you're worried >> > > the policy is unclear, or it is not being followed. Can you clarify >> > > which it is? >> > >> > It is not being followed. >> > >> > I have brought this up at every forum session on these programs, and the >> > people in the room from QA have *always* pushed back on it. >> >> OK, so that's a problem. I need to hear from the QA team why they've >> reversed that decision. >> >> > >> > And, for clarity (I saw this in a few logs) QA have *never* said that >> > they will take the interop designated tests for the DNS project into >> > openstack/tempest. >> >> When we approved the resolution that describes the current policy, the >> QA team agreed that they would take tests for trademark. There was no >> stipulation about which projects those apply to. > > I feel pretty sure that was discussed in a TC meeting, but I can't > find that. I do find Matt and Ken'ichi voting +1 on the resolution > itself. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312718/. If I remember > correctly, Ken'ichi was the PTL at the time.
Yeah, I have still agreed with the resolution. When I voted +1 on that, core projects were defined as 6 projects like Nova, Cinder, Glance, Keystone, Neutron and Swift. And the project navigator also showed these 6 projects as core projects. Now I cannot find such definition on the project navigator[1], the definition has been changed? I just want to clarify "is it true that designate and heat become core projects?" If there is a concrete decision, I don't have any objections against that we have these projects tests in Tempest as the resolution. Thanks Ken Ohmichi --- [1]: https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
