On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:52 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi <[email protected]> wrote: > 2018-01-18 12:36 GMT-08:00 Doug Hellmann <[email protected]>: >> >> I feel pretty sure that was discussed in a TC meeting, but I can't >> find that. I do find Matt and Ken'ichi voting +1 on the resolution >> itself. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312718/. If I remember >> correctly, Ken'ichi was the PTL at the time. > > Yeah, I have still agreed with the resolution. > When I voted +1 on that, core projects were defined as 6 projects like > Nova, Cinder, Glance, Keystone, Neutron and Swift. > And the project navigator also showed these 6 projects as core projects. > Now I cannot find such definition on the project navigator[1], the > definition has been changed? > I just want to clarify "is it true that designate and heat become core > projects?" > If there is a concrete decision, I don't have any objections against > that we have these projects tests in Tempest as the resolution.
I think the fuzziness between what we're colloquially calling "core" (or sometimes "integrated"), what has tests in tempest, and what is part of the original trademark program, is part of the problem. As I understand it, designate and heat are not trying to become "core". What they are applying for is to be part of a new subgroup within the trademark program. The question at hand is, given that they are not "core" (whatever that really means), but they are going to be part of the trademark program, is there a technical reason they shouldn't have some of their tests in tempest? And if not, is there a social reason for it? Colleen > > Thanks > Ken Ohmichi > > --- > [1]: https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
