Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-03-08 12:45:11 -0500: > On 07/03/18 08:44, Ghanshyam Mann wrote: > > I mean i am all ok with separate plugin which is more easy for QA team > > but ownership to QA is kind of going to same direction(QA team > > maintaining interop ads-on tests) in more difficult way. > > After reading this and the logs from the QA meeting,[1] I feel like > there is some confusion/miscommunication over what the proposed > resolution means by 'ownership'. Basically every Git repo has to be > registered to *some* project in > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/projects.yaml > > The proposal was to register the trademark test plugins to the QA > project. The implications of this are fairly minimal in my view: > > * The project gets a say on any new repo creation requests (this will > help maintain e.g. a consistent naming scheme IMO) > * Contributors to the repos are considered contributors to the project, > get to vote in the PTL elections, and are allowed to put the logo > sticker on their laptop.[2] (This seems appropriate to me, and in the > best case might even help convert some people into becoming core > reviewers for QA in the long term.) > * The project would have to meet any other obligations in regards to > those repos that the TC delegates to project teams and PTLs - though > none of the ones I can think of (releases, tracking project-wide goals) > would really apply in practice to the repos we're talking about. > > Perhaps I am missing something that you have a specific concern with? > > It is *not* meant to imply that the project has an obligation to write > tests (nobody expects this, in fact), nor that the core reviewers it > contributes to the core review team for the repo have any stronger > obligation to do reviews than any of the other core reviewers (we really > want all 3 teams to contribute to reviews, since they each bring > different expertise). > > I think we have two options that could resolve this: > * Change the wording to ensure that future readers cannot interpret the > resolution as placing obligations on the QA team that we didn't intend > and they do not want; or > * Register the Git repos to the refstack project instead. > > cheers, > Zane. > > [1] > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/qa/2018/qa.2018-03-08-07.59.log.html#l-34 > [2] kidding! Everyone knows you can't have the sticker until after the > initiation ;) >
Why would the repos be owned by anyone other than the original project team? Doug __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
