David, As noted in the release call today, I'd like to help you find the right solution toward visibility of test planning by projects, which meets the need (which needs to be defined) in the lightest-weight way. I suggest that we start a wiki page which defines the goals for the process changes you've proposed, clarifying:
- What are the issues that these process changes are intended to address o Specific examples from Colorado would be helpful. I don't think any project should be overly concerned about a retrospective discussion of perceived issues and future solutions to them. o We should also point to examples of perceived best practices from Colorado. - What is the "ask" in response to those issues. o I heard today, the development of a test plan that projects would publish. - What are the solution alternatives to that ask, e.g. o Sections in project documents (vs a separate document), e.g. as shown in 10.1. Copper functional tests<http://artifacts.opnfv.org/copper/docs/design/index.html#document-postinstall_link> (admittedly, brief... but a start) o wiki pages (as Jose pointed to, for FuncTest<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/functest/Functest+Colorado> - which needs to be updated as I notice now...), or as I created for Copper<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/copper/testing> o creating a template for test planning clarity through JIRA o ... - What are the upstream best practices for this ask, that we might adopt - What are the thoughts of the community on the issues and proposals Further I suggest we make very sure that all projects/PTLs are aware of the proposed changes and have a chance to weigh in ASAP in the process. Thanks, Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
