[openstack-dev] [QA] Tempest blueprints status update and rationale, input demanded
sean at dague.net
Wed Dec 11 20:19:34 UTC 2013
First, thanks for this! Much appreciated.
On 12/11/2013 07:44 AM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> I'm attempting to rationalize on the status of tempest blueprints. I
> need your help so I organized questions in a few open points.
> * (1) I'm looking for input here on the actual status of the following
> blueprints, which are already approved or in a good progress state:
> seems done, shall we close it? (steve baker)
> seems done, shall we close it? (david kranz)
I'm happy closing this one, but I think we need a follow up about
actually closing out the logging errors. We should have a pretty
discreet count of what's in the white list. And how big the white list
is every week is something I think we should bring to the meeting.
> seems done, close? (mtreinish)
> old but still valid for icehouse, what is the real status here? (mlavalle)
> is slow progress appropriate here? (david kranz)
> this was approved but it looks to me quite hard to implement tests for
> the different network topologies, is it even possible given our infra?
> needs approval, is there any agreement upon this being implemented or
> shall we drop this? (all core and contributors)
I've yet to see a champion on this or bring this up at weekly meetings,
irc, or on the mailing list (any of which would be valid discussion
areas). So my suggestion is to close it out as invalid at this point.
> identifying missing tests isn't a blueprint per se I think so I'd close
> this unless someone volunteer the work to at least identify the wanted
> * (2) The following are instead blueprints open for discussion which I
> think should either be approved or closed, again input is more than
> welcomed as well as assignees if you care about it:
This needs more specificity around it, which I don't think we have at
> * (3) Finally, as a general rule of thumb for the many remaining
> blueprints which only demand for new tests, I think we should keep and
> approve blueprints asking for basic tests around new components but
> *not* (as in close) blueprints demanding for additional tests around
> existing components. Does it look reasonable?
Yes, I think so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the OpenStack-dev