On 11/18/2014 03:44 PM, Clark Boylan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014, at 04:21 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> When we put together our third-party CI account naming scheme a few >> months ago, discussion was mostly focused on how to avoid confusion >> on official projects where we have upwards of 50 systems providing >> feedback on a proposed change. Requirements like "include the name >> of your company and subsystem being tested" or "the account name >> can't include the name of the project" make sense there, but we have >> another somewhat unrelated use case for these accounts which also >> needs some consideration. >> >> Consider a project whose community collaboratively maintains a >> single external test system to provide feedback about things that we >> won't or can't easily test in our infrastructure... I've seen a lot >> of confusion around how those accounts are allowed to be named. >> Consider the following existing accounts as examples: >> >> Compass CI >> Docker CI >> Fuel CI >> MagnetoDB CI >> Puppet CI >> Sahara Hadoop Cluster CI >> >> I've proposed https://review.openstack.org/135050 in an attempt to >> reach some consensus that for this particular use case, having an >> account like "YourProject CI" for your community to use in reporting >> test results on your project is acceptable. I'm bringing this up now >> because we have somewhere around half a dozen outstanding account >> requests (some more than a month old) matching this particular >> pattern and I'd like to be able to just go ahead and take care of >> them, but I don't want to go upsetting anyone over the possibility >> that we've violated our hard-and-fast rules for third-party CI >> account naming. >> -- >> Jeremy Stanley >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-Infra mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra > > +2 (and I have voted that way on 135050). Stackforge exists to encourage > awesomeness and when the frameworks it is built on impede that we should > consider updating the framework. There is clearly a need for third party > testing for Stackforge projects and they may not have a company backing > or subsystem being tested. They just need to run tests outside of > upstream for reasons and we should enable that.
I have never agreed more strongly with Clark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
