On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:24:14PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2017-05-31 17:18:54 +0100 (+0100), Graham Hayes wrote: > [...] > > Trademark programs are trademark programs - we should have a unified > > process for all of them. Let's not make the same mistakes again by > > creating classes of projects / programs. I do not want this to be > > a distinction as we move forward. > > This I agree with. However I'll be surprised if a majority of the QA > team disagree on this point (logistic concerns with how to curate > this over time I can understand, but that just means they need to > interest some people in working on a manageable solution).
+1 I don't think anyone disagrees with this. There is a logistical concern with the way the new proposed programs are going to be introduced. Quite frankly it's too varied and broad and I don't think we'll have enough people working on this space to help maintain it in the same manner. It's the same reason we worked on the plugin decomposition in the first place. You can easily look at the numbers of tests to see this: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mtreinish/qa-in-the-open/lca2017/tests_per_proj.png Which shows things before the plugin decomposition (and before the big tent) Just because we said we'd support all the incubated and integrated projects in tempest didn't mean people were contributing and/or the tests were well maintained. But, as I said elsewhere in this thread this is a bit too early to have the conversation because the new interop programs don't actually exist yet. -Matt Treinish
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
