Open Stack

Hi, David

Thanks for your reply.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:37 AM, David Kranz <dkranz at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2013 09:34 AM, Masayuki Igawa wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I read the qa-meeting log[1]. And I registered a blueprint[2] for
>> tracking and avoiding duplication.
>>
>> I think if we put "Partially Implements: blueprint
>> add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse" in the commit message,
>> we can avoid the duplication and tracking the scenarios. Because the
>> commit subject and the link will be wrote automatically in the
>> whiteboard.
>> However, I'm not sure whether we can associate with multiple
>> blueprints such as BP:lbaas-scenario-tests and
>> add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse though.
>> Is this make sense?
>>
>> [1]
>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/qa/2013/qa.2013-11-14-17.02.log.html
>> [2]
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse
>>
>> Any comments and suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> -- Masayuki Igawa
>
> I think there could also be links to other blueprints either in the
> whiteboard or main section of the blueprint. At the meeting we just said
> there should be some way to get from the master blueprint to information
> about each new scenario being created.
>
>  -David


I've added three links on the whiteboard of the blueprint.
 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/add-scenario-tests-in-icehouse
---------------
* https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/neutron-advanced-scenarios
  Advanced scenario tests for Neutron

* https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/lbaas-scenario-tests
  Add advanced scenario tests for Neutron LBaaS sevice

* https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56923/
  zeroth version of l3 topology scenario
---------------

Every developers can modify the whiteboard. So developers can add
their scenario to this white board by themselves or automatically.
I hope this BP could be useful for tracking scenarios and avoiding
duplicate development.

Best Regards,
-- Masayuki Igawa


>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've pushed https://review.openstack.org/#/c/56923/ trying to follow this
>>> protocol.
>>>
>>> Salvatore
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 November 2013 16:38, Zhi Kun Liu <liuzhikun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1, This is a great idea.  We could consider it as a general process for
>>>> all tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/11/14 Koderer, Marc <m.koderer at telekom.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have quite the same issue with the neutron testing. I
>>>>> already put it on the agenda for the QA meeting for today.
>>>>> Let's make it to a general topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Marc
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Giulio Fidente [gfidente at redhat.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:23 AM
>>>>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa] Tracking development of scenario
>>>>> tests
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/2013 12:24 AM, David Kranz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Developer checks in the zeroth version of a scenario test as work
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> progress. It contains a description of the test, and     possibly work
>>>>>> items.  This will "claim" the area of the proposed scenario to avoid
>>>>>> duplication and allow others to comment through gerrit.
>>>>>> 2. The developer pushes new versions, removing work in progress if the
>>>>>> code is in working state and a review is desired and/or others will be
>>>>>> contributing to the scenario.
>>>>>> 3. When finished, any process-oriented content such as progress
>>>>>> tracking
>>>>>> is removed and the test is ready for final review.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 , the description will eventually contribute to documenting the
>>>>> scenarios
>>>>>
>>>>> yet the submitter (step 1) remains in charge of adding to the draft the
>>>>> reviewers
>>>>>
>>>>> how about we map at least one volunteer to each service (via the
>>>>> HACKING
>>>>> file) and ask submitters to add such a person as reviewer of its drafts
>>>>> when the tests touch the service? this should help avoid tests
>>>>> duplication.
>>>>>
>>>>> I very much like the idea of using gerrit for this
>>>>> --
>>>>> Giulio Fidente
>>>>> GPG KEY: 08D733BA | IRC: giulivo
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>



-- 
Masayuki Igawa