Hello David. As an addendum, here is the ticket following up on the discussion that you and I had on this subject four weeks ago, where the result was that the issue and impacts were understood and you would work on it.
So with regards to common lab naming and networks - you have been in the loop and there is an JIRA ticket for you on this exact subject - so its not really a question of "not hearing in a given call" - this issue has been documented. https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/GENESIS-90 Thank you D From: Daniel Smith Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:05 PM To: David McBride <dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Christopher Price (christopher.pr...@ericsson.com) <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>; Fatih Degirmenci (fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com) <fatih.degirme...@ericsson.com>; jack.mor...@intel.com Subject: Follow up on COMMON Discussion from the Release meeting today Hello David. Further to your comment about "not hearing about the issues regarding commonality and how this is achieved within OPNFV", I would ask that you take a look at the GENESIS JIRA issue list. https://jira.opnfv.org/projects/GENESIS/issues/GENESIS-77?filter=allopenissues In terms of discussion points - these are the issues that need to be resolved / an agreement on how we are going to do all this together (and how to handle when for whatever reason a person,project, tech piece, etc) cannot be aligned (and how the pharos, infra, projects and scenarios should handle such one-offs) are listed. These have been growing and languishing for quite some time and since Genesis is not releasing in Colarado, - I'm having a hard time rationalizing putting in work hours / idea and code towards the CI evolution and INFRA WG items, when as soon as they are submitted they are either to vertical (Silo/application for a single case) or are simply not relevant to all, because everyone is so far along doing their own thing. As has been indicated several times through this release (open tickets on yourself, Heather, etc that sit unanswered) and previous release, its quite hard to put in work that we "know" is going to be pushed back since the first comment would be that it "doesn't apply to all / people do this differently). Faith has brought this up several times as well with regards to RELENG. I am not sure that INFRA WG (and definetaly not PHAROS) is the correct place to have this - since INFRA should not really be a "be-all to end-all" place for everything (and this extended beyond simply INFRA WG - marketing, documentation, how we "call things"). In the end, maybe trying for commonality is not a good goal (I don't know) - and that would be fine, so long as we start to build CI, RELENG, PHAROS< etc with the idea that each "installer" (and thus by proxy, feature, scenario and testing suite) will be unique in approach and code to meet this requirement. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Daniel Smith [Ericsson]<http://www.ericsson.com/> Daniel Smith Sr. System Designer Ericsson Inc. 8400 Decarie Blvd. Montreal, PQ (514)-594-2799 [http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign]<http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign> Legal entity: Ericsson AB, registered office in Stockholm. This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
