Great. I withdraw: #3. Shall we also agree that those not in [1] - in other words, the developers give up commit bit for #2. Can still contribute but don't need to be involved in #1 agreements.
And to re-iterate and be very clear, Kersom's ", just to communicate QE in case of test changes. We already have a system in place on git." looks like getting an approved code review from someone in [1]. That works for me and I appreciate the clarifications. Robin On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:15 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > I agree. I think devs can merge changes to pulp-smash tests in pulp repos > but they should get it reviewed by QE before merging--which, as Kersom > says, we've been doing. > > David > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:11 PM Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> David, thanks for driving this. >> >> I agree with your suggestions Robin. >> >> All currently present on [1] should have commit bit for those repos. >> >> I think it is fine to the devs to have commit to the test repos, just to >> communicate QE in case of test changes. We already have a system in place >> on git. >> >> [1] https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/qe >> >> Thanks, >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07 AM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> A few suggestions. >>> >>> #1. QE good with [1] - you all agree these are the folks with commit >>> bit? In other words, you trust each other to do the merge with your own >>> agreements of who has expertise and when things are ready - all the details? >>> #2. I would suggest we are suggesting QE have commit bit access to the >>> specific subdirectories; >>> a) pulp_file/pulp_file/tests/functional/ (in pulp/pulp_file repo) >>> b) pulp/pulp_core/tests/functional/ (in pulp/pulp repo) >>> I know this is not enforceable via the GIT settings, but helpful to be >>> explicit about as we include this in agreement. >>> #3. Shall we also agree that those not in [1] - in other words, the >>> developers give up commit bit for #2. Can still contribute but don't need >>> to be involved in #1 agreements. >>> >>> Fully supportive of this effort. I was one of the folks who gave my word >>> prior to PUP-6 and see this as making sure the folks have what they need to >>> get stuff done and keeping decision making with the folks closest to the >>> work (i.e. QE makes decisions about all things QE.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> When we moved the pulp-smash tests out of the pulp-smash repository, we >>>> promised to give QE ownership of the smash tests within the Pulp >>>> repositories on github. I know we have a process in place to give the >>>> commit bit to contributors[0] but this promise predates PUP-6. >>>> >>>> Thus, I'd like to ask for feedback on giving the QE team in github[1] >>>> the commit bit to the following repositories in order to merge changes to >>>> smash tests: >>>> >>>> pulp/pulp >>>> pulp/pulp_file >>>> >>>> I'd also like to ask plugin teams to consider giving QE commit access >>>> to their repositories if they have pulp-smash tests that are maintained by >>>> QE. >>>> >>>> Feedback would be appreciated. I'll like to set an deadline of January >>>> 30th. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0006.md >>>> [1] https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/qe >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
