On 18/01/18 18:52, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 17:52:39 +0000: >> On 18/01/18 16:25, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 15:33:12 +0000: >> >> <snip/> >> >>> >>> In the past the QA team agreed to accept trademark-related tests from >>> all projects in the tempest repo. Has that changed? >>> >> >> There has not been an explict rejection but in all conversations the >> response has been "non core projects are outside the scope of tempest". >> >> Honestly, everytime we have tried to do something to core tempest >> we have had major pushback, and I want to clarify this before I or >> someone else put in the work of porting the base clients, getting CI >> configured*, and proposing the tests to tempest. > > OK. > > The current policy doesn't say anything about "core" or different > trademark programs or any other criteria. > > The TC therefore encourages the DefCore committee to consider it an > indication of future technical direction that we do not want tests > outside of the Tempest repository used for trademark enforcement, and > that any new or existing tests that cover capabilities they want to > consider for trademark enforcement should be placed in Tempest. > > That all seems very clear to me (setting aside some specific word > choices like "future technical direction" that tie the resolution > to language in the bylaws). Regardless of technical reasons why > it may not be necessary, we still have many social justifications > for doing it the way we originally set out to do it. Tests related > to trademark enforcement need to go into the tempest repository. > > The way I think this should work (and the way I remember us describing > it at the time the policy was established) is the Interop WG > (previously DefCore) should identify capabilities and tests, then > ask project teams to reproduce those tests in the tempest repo. > When the tests land, they can be used by the trademark program. > Teams can also, at their leisure, decide whether to remove the > original versions of the tests from whatever repo they existed in > to begin with. > > Graham, you've proposed a new resolution with several options for > where to put tests for "add-on programs." I don't think we need > that resolution if we want the tests to continue to live in tempest. > The existing resolution doesn't qualify which tests, beyond "for > trademark enforcement" and more words won't make that more clear, > IMO. > > Now if you *do* want to change the policy, we should talk about > that. But I can't tell whether you want to change it, you're worried > the policy is unclear, or it is not being followed. Can you clarify > which it is?
It is not being followed. I have brought this up at every forum session on these programs, and the people in the room from QA have *always* pushed back on it. And, for clarity (I saw this in a few logs) QA have *never* said that they will take the interop designated tests for the DNS project into openstack/tempest. To the point that the interop tooling was developed to support plugins (which would seem to be in breach of this resolution, but I am sure there is reasons for this.) I do want to have option 3 (interop-tempest-plugin), but right now I will settle for us either: A: Doing what we planned on before (Option 1) (Prefered) B: Documenting the fact that things have changed (Option 2), and articulate and record the reasoning for the change. I think Add Ons are going to the Board in Dublin for the change from Advisory, in the 2018.02 standard so we need to get clarity on this. - Graham > Doug > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev