Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] [Openstack-operators] [QA] Proposal for a QA SIG
Hi It will be happy to participate and help in driving this effort Thanks Ofer On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Ofer Blaut wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Rochelle Grober < > rochelle.gro...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> First off, let me say I think this is a tremendous idea. And, it's >> perfect for the SIG concept. >> >> Next, see inline: >> >> Thierry Carrez wrote: >> > Andrea Frittoli wrote: >> > > [...] >> > > during the last summit in Sydney we discussed the possibility of >> > > creating an OpenStack quality assurance special interest group >> (OpenStack >> > QA SIG). >> > > The proposal was discussed during the QA feedback session [0] and it >> > > received positive feedback there; I would like to bring now the >> > > proposal to a larger audience via the SIG, dev and operators mailing >> > > lists. >> > > [...] >> > >> > I think this goes with the current trends of re-centering upstream >> "project >> > teams" on the production of software, while using SIGs as communities of >> > practice (beyond the governance boundaries), even if they happen to >> > produce (some) software as the result of their work. >> > >> > One question I have is whether we'd need to keep the "QA" project team >> at >> > all. Personally I think it would create confusion to keep it around, >> for no gain. >> > SIGs code contributors get voting rights for the TC anyway, and SIGs >> are free >> > to ask for space at the PTG... so there is really no reason (imho) to >> keep a >> > "QA" project team in parallel to the SIG ? >> >> Well, you can get rid of the "QA Project Team" but you would then need to >> replace it with something like the Tempest Project, or perhaps the Test >> Project. You still need a PTL and cores to write, review and merge tempest >> fixes and upgrades, along with some of the tests. The Interop Guideline >> tests are part of Tempest because being there provides oversight on the >> style and quality of the code of those tests. We still need that. >> >> --Rocky >> >> > In the same vein we are looking into turning the Security project team >> into a >> > SIG, and could consider turning other non-purely-upstream teams (like >> I18n) >> > in the future. >> > >> > -- >> > Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> > >> > ___ >> > openstack-sigs mailing list >> > openstack-s...@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-sigs >> >> __ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib >> e >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-sigs] [Openstack-operators] [QA] Proposal for a QA SIG
Hi On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Rochelle Grober < rochelle.gro...@huawei.com> wrote: > First off, let me say I think this is a tremendous idea. And, it's > perfect for the SIG concept. > > Next, see inline: > > Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Andrea Frittoli wrote: > > > [...] > > > during the last summit in Sydney we discussed the possibility of > > > creating an OpenStack quality assurance special interest group > (OpenStack > > QA SIG). > > > The proposal was discussed during the QA feedback session [0] and it > > > received positive feedback there; I would like to bring now the > > > proposal to a larger audience via the SIG, dev and operators mailing > > > lists. > > > [...] > > > > I think this goes with the current trends of re-centering upstream > "project > > teams" on the production of software, while using SIGs as communities of > > practice (beyond the governance boundaries), even if they happen to > > produce (some) software as the result of their work. > > > > One question I have is whether we'd need to keep the "QA" project team at > > all. Personally I think it would create confusion to keep it around, for > no gain. > > SIGs code contributors get voting rights for the TC anyway, and SIGs are > free > > to ask for space at the PTG... so there is really no reason (imho) to > keep a > > "QA" project team in parallel to the SIG ? > > Well, you can get rid of the "QA Project Team" but you would then need to > replace it with something like the Tempest Project, or perhaps the Test > Project. You still need a PTL and cores to write, review and merge tempest > fixes and upgrades, along with some of the tests. The Interop Guideline > tests are part of Tempest because being there provides oversight on the > style and quality of the code of those tests. We still need that. > > --Rocky > > > In the same vein we are looking into turning the Security project team > into a > > SIG, and could consider turning other non-purely-upstream teams (like > I18n) > > in the future. > > > > -- > > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > > > ___ > > openstack-sigs mailing list > > openstack-s...@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-sigs > __ > 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 > __ 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
[openstack-dev] extend Network topology view in horizon
Hi It will be helpful to extend Network topology view in horizon 1. Admin should be able to see the entire/per tenant network topology (we might need a flag to enable/disable it). 2. Supporting ICON for FWaaS/LBaaS/VPNaaS on both admin & tenant level, so it will be easy to see the deployments Are there any blueprints to support it ? Thanks Ofer ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Blueprint information - security-group-rules-protocol-numbers
Please discard Thanks Ofer - Original Message - > From: "Ofer Blaut" > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Cc: aro...@nicira.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:50:42 PM > Subject: Blueprint information - security-group-rules-protocol-numbers > > Hi, > > I am interested in helping out with QE efforts on upstream > OpenStack, specifically around Neutron. > > I'm trying to understand the following blueprint,It will be great if you can > point me to a detailed spec > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/security-group-rules-protocol-numbers > > Thanks > > Ofer ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Blueprint information - security-group-rules-protocol-numbers
Hi, I am interested in helping out with QE efforts on upstream OpenStack, specifically around Neutron. I'm trying to understand the following blueprint,It will be great if you can point me to a detailed spec https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/security-group-rules-protocol-numbers Thanks Ofer ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Fwd: detail design of configurable-ip-allocation
Hi I didn't took a look on the patch status What should we do with Abandoned patches ? close the RFE bug ? Thanks Ofer - Forwarded Message - From: "Mark McLoughlin" To: "Ofer Blaut" Cc: "Perry Myers" Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:00:20 PM Subject: Re: detail design of configurable-ip-allocation Given that the patches for this were abandoned in April, why would we chase this feature at this point? It may never get implemented in Havana ... Mark. On Sun, 2013-07-28 at 07:17 -0400, Ofer Blaut wrote: > Sorry wrong email > > Ofer > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ofer Blaut" > > To: "Mark McLoughlin" > > Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 2:16:29 PM > > Subject: detail design of configurable-ip-allocation > > > > Hi Mark > > > > I would like to write test plan on > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/configurable-ip-allocation > > > > But have not detail design > > > > Can you please point me to the detail design > > > > Thanks > > > > Ofer ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Fwd: Blueprint information
Hi Hi, I am interested in helping out with QE efforts on upstream OpenStack, specifically around Neutron. I'm trying to understand the following blueprint,can you please point me to more detailed design https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/auto-associate-floating-ip Thanks Ofer Blaut ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
