> > == Namespace structure == > > > > We'll be providing some top-level namespaces (list not yet final): > > * app > > * fedoraqa > > * package > > * scratch (?) > > > > These will the further split to facilitate for a finer level of > > granularity, e.g.: > > > > app > > testdays > > powermanagement > > pm-suspendr > > fedoraqa > > depcheck > > rpmgrill > > package > > <pkgname> > > unit > > func
I'm not sure if "func" and "unit" were meant as mandatory in the original proposal, but I'd drop them. Let each package maintainer organize their tests however they see it logical/useful. I don't see any benefit this separation would bring for us. Is there? > > > My thought on namespaces would be something like: > > high level: > > team > user > package > release > test (or dev) I like test/dev/scratch. I realized it could be useful for experimentation, we could for example omit sending fedmsgs for these namespaces, and prune these results in resultsdb more often, and yet people would be able to run something in an experimental mode including seeing results in resultsdb. (Of course for basic task development, we should recommend disabling resultsdb submission). > > > team and user are self explanatory; each package would be in the package > namespace, > release would cover release-validation testing, I'm not sure about "release", I see the same problem as with "app", it's hard to decide what goes in there and what goes into "team.qa" or elsewhere. > and test would be reserved > for taskotron > unit/self testing. Ah, I understood test/dev differently. For taskotron testing, we run staging and development instance with separate resultsdb instances. So I guess a namespace for this purpose is not needed. > > I'm thinking that we could do, for example: > > team.qa.testdays.<test-name> > > or > > team.desktop.func.<some-test> > > or > > release.validation.openqa > > > Am I on the right track here, or just wandering in the weeds? > > John. That's how I imagine it. In the beginning, it might be a wild west, but once we have some permission model in place, I'd like to pre-define just a very small skeleton of top-level namespace prefixes (pkg.<pkgname>, team.<teamname>, user.<fasname>, etc) and let people do whatever they like with it. Thanks for feedback, pirate. _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
