On 01/06/17 01:30, Matthew Treinish wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:45:52PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2017-05-31 15:22:59 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> On 2017-05-31 09:43:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> [...] >>>> it's news to me that they're considering reversing course. If the >>>> QA team isn't going to continue, we'll need to figure out what >>>> that means and potentially find another group to do it. >>> >>> I wasn't there for the discussion, but it sounds likely to be a >>> mischaracterization. I'm going to assume it's not true (or much more >>> nuanced) at least until someone responds on behalf of the QA team. >>> This particular subthread is only going to go further into the weeds >>> until it is grounded in some authoritative details. >> >> Apologies for replying to myself, but per discussion[*] with Chris >> in #openstack-dev I'm adjusting the subject header to make it more >> clear which particular line of speculation I consider weedy. >> >> Also in that brief discussion, Graham made it slightly clearer that >> he was talking about pushback on the tempest repo getting tests for >> new trademark programs beyond "OpenStack Powered Platform," >> "OpenStack Powered Compute" and "OpenStack Powered Object Storage." > > TBH, it's a bit premature to have the discussion. These additional programs do > not exist yet, and there is a governance road block around this. Right now the > set of projects that can be used defcore/interopWG is limited to the set of > projects in: > > https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/tc_approved-release.html
Sure - but that is a solved problem, when the interop committee is ready to propose them, they can add projects into that tag. Or am I misunderstanding [1] (again)? This *is* the time to discuss it, as these programs are aimed as advisory for the 2018 spec - which means we need to solve these problems, and soon. > We had a forum session on it (I can't find the etherpad for the session) which > was pretty speculative because it was about planning the new programs. Part of > that discussion was around the feasibility of using tests in plugins and > whether > that would be desirable. Personally, I was in favor of doing that for some of > the proposed programs because of the way they were organized it was a good > fit. > This is because the proposed new programs were extra additions on top of the > base existing interop program. But it was hardly a definitive discussion. Which will create 2 classes of testing for interop programs. > We will have to have discussions about how we're going to actually implement > the additional programs when we start to create them, but that's not happening > yet. > Except it is - at least one team has submitted capabilities, and others are doing so at the moment. 1 - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/368240/ > -Matt Treinish > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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
