Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

> I think running all of them for now is the best way. If the runtime on Travis becomes unbearable we can look into solutions then. Smoke tests were created at the behest of developers for precisely this situation. This line of code: py.test -v --color=yes --pyargs pulp_smash.tests.pulp3 ...can

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

Are we running only a subset? I think currently we run all of them on Travis before each merge. I think running all of them for now is the best way. If the runtime on Travis becomes unbearable we can look into solutions then. On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Daniel Alley

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:32 AM, David Davis wrote: > A couple things. First, we’re only running pulpcore and pulp_file tests > against pulpcore PRs. Also, we’re not running all pulp-smash tests for each > PR—only a certain subset labeled as "smoke tests". That said, we’ll

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

A couple things. First, we’re only running pulpcore and pulp_file tests against pulpcore PRs. Also, we’re not running all pulp-smash tests for each PR—only a certain subset labeled as "smoke tests". That said, we’ll still want to keep an eye on pulp-smash tests over time to make sure it doesn’t

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

"The plan for quality involves the continuous delivery of Pulp 3 where both unit and integration are run with each PR and prior to each release to PyPI" My concern about the above statement is that as the number of tests increases, the time it will take to run the pulp-smash integration suite

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

The documentation has been updated[0]. [0] https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/contributing/continuous_integration.html On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > I have updated the redmine issue[0] to include a page in the contributors > guide on

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 release quality

Dennis, Thanks for putting this together. I don't see any responses on this thread and take that to mean there were no concerns about this proposal. Would this process/responsibility change need to go anywhere? (Side questions, was this technically a PUP?) "author of the PR would need to be