Robin, yeap. Exactly what you described it. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:22 PM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
