On 08/12/2014 05:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> I am less concerned about the contents of this patch, and more concerned >> with how such a big de facto change in nova policy (we accept untested code >> sometimes) without any discussion or consensus. In your comment on the >> revert , you say the 'whether not-CI-tested features should be allowed >> to be merged' debate is 'clearly unresolved.' How did you get to that >> conclusion? This was never brought up in the mid-cycles as a unresolved >> topic to be discussed. In our specs template we say "Is this untestable in >> gate given current limitations (specific hardware / software configurations >> available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (3rd party testing, gate >> enhancements, etc)" . We have been blocking untested features for some >> time now. > > That last lines are nonsense. We have never unconditionally blocked untested > features nor do I recommend that we do so. The specs template testing allows > the contributor to *justify* why they think the feature is worth accepting > despite lack of testing. The reviewers make a judgement call on whether the > justification is valid or not. This is a pragmmatic approach to the problem.
That has been my interpretation and approach as well: we strongly prefer functional testing for everything, but take a pragmatic approach and evaluate proposals on a case by case basis. It's clear we need to be a bit more explicit here. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev