-----Original Message----- From: Mike Perez <thin...@gmail.com> Reply: Mike Perez <thin...@gmail.com> Date: February 22, 2016 at 11:51:39 To: Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com>, OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016
> On 02/22/2016 07:19 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Perez > > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Date: February 19, 2016 at 19:21:13 > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016 > > > >> On 02/18/2016 09:05 PM, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote: > >>> There is no implicit (or explicit) requirement for the tests to be a > >>> full integration/end-to-end test. Mocks and/or unit tests would be > >>> sufficient to satisfy "test-driven gate". > >> > >> While I do agree there is no requirement, I would not be satisfied with > >> us giving up on having functional or integration tests from a project > >> because of the available implementations. It's reasons like this that > >> highlight Poppy being different from the rest of OpenStack. > > > > Would third-party integration CI not be satisfactory? > > That would be fine, but are these commercial CDN solutions going to be > interested in hosting them? I don't know that for certain and I don't know if the Poppy team has gotten so far as asking them. I'd also be unsurprised if this resulted in a catch 22 of sorts where CDNs will only work on those if Poppy is OpenStack and we'd only be happy accepting Poppy if it had those third-party CI services. -- Ian Cordasco __________________________________________________________________________ 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