On 11/12/2013 10:15 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:46 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On 12 November 2013 21:15, Edgar Magana wrote:
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> It has been decided during the Icehouse summit that all vendor specific
>>> plug-ins should enforce remote tempest tests:
On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Edgar Magana wrote:
>
> I do agree with you. When I said in my first email "little bit of guidance" I
> mean the policy for Icehouse and moving forward. I do not want to make our
> PTL angry :-)
I wouldn’t worry about making me angry. I officiated football (socc
Salvatore,
I do agree with you. When I said in my first email "little bit of guidance"
I mean the policy for Icehouse and moving forward. I do not want to make
our PTL angry :-)
Mark,
I hope you can commend on this thread, otherwise I will bring this topic on
our next IRC meeting.
Thanks,
Edg
I reckon we should wait a little for the PTL to propose a draft of the
policy we can comment on.
'thirdy paty test' probably was meant as integration with gerrit (
http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html); the test suite to be executed
is, obviously, the tempest test suite.
In my opinion, the pol
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:46 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 12 November 2013 21:15, Edgar Magana wrote:
>> Team,
>>
>> It has been decided during the Icehouse summit that all vendor specific
>> plug-ins should enforce remote tempest tests:
>> http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
>>
>> I would l
On 12 November 2013 21:15, Edgar Magana wrote:
> Team,
>
> It has been decided during the Icehouse summit that all vendor specific
> plug-ins should enforce remote tempest tests:
> http://ci.openstack.org/third_party.html
>
> I would like to understand if we will apply this rule for any new plug-i
