On 19/01/18 00:52, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote: > 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.
This seems to be the problem - there is not now, or ever been a "core" project definition that was decided by TC / community. We have a set of projects that most people will refer to as "core", but there is no way to add projects to that. What was highlighted on the project navigator was a set of projects the marketing dept in the foundation considered core, which is definitely *not* something we as a community should use as a technical basis for anything. > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
