On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:11 +0100, Luke Gorrie wrote: > On 3 March 2014 18:30, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > My advice was therefore that you should not wait for that to > happen to > > engage in cooperative behavior, because you don't want to be > the first > company to get singled out. > > > "Cooperative behavior" is vague.
Not really, IMO. > Case in point: I have not successfully setup 3rd party CI for the ML2 > driver that I've developed on behalf of a vendor. Please feel free to engage with myself and others on IRC if you have problems. We had a first meeting on #openstack-meeting yesterday and have started putting answers to questions about 3rd party CI here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/third-party-ci-workshop Let me know how we can help you! > Does this make me one of your "uncooperative vendors"? Of course not. Now, if you were not seeking out any assistance from the community and instead were talking to a few other companies about just replacing all of the upstream continuous integration system with something you wrote yourself, yes, I would say that's being uncooperative. :) > Do I need to worry about being fired because somebody at OpenStack > decides to "name and shame" the company I'm doing the work for and > make an example? (Is that what the "deprecated neutron drivers list" > will be used for?) No. Not having success in setting up a required CI link does not make you uncooperative. Simply reach out to others in the community for assistance if you need it. > If one project official says "driver contributors have to comply with > X, Y, Z by Icehouse-2" and then another project official says that > "uncooperative contributors are going to be nailed to the wall" then, > well, sucks to be contributors. I think you are over-analyzing this :) Best, -jay _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
