[openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Thu Mar 8 17:57:59 UTC 2018

Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-03-08 12:45:11 -0500:
> On 07/03/18 08:44, Ghanshyam Mann wrote:
> > I mean i am all ok with separate plugin which is more easy for QA team 
> > but ownership to QA is kind of going to same direction(QA team 
> > maintaining interop ads-on tests) in more difficult way.
> After reading this and the logs from the QA meeting,[1] I feel like 
> there is some confusion/miscommunication over what the proposed 
> resolution means by 'ownership'. Basically every Git repo has to be 
> registered to *some* project in 
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/projects.yaml
> The proposal was to register the trademark test plugins to the QA 
> project. The implications of this are fairly minimal in my view:
> * The project gets a say on any new repo creation requests (this will 
> help maintain e.g. a consistent naming scheme IMO)
> * Contributors to the repos are considered contributors to the project, 
> get to vote in the PTL elections, and are allowed to put the logo 
> sticker on their laptop.[2] (This seems appropriate to me, and in the 
> best case might even help convert some people into becoming core 
> reviewers for QA in the long term.)
> * The project would have to meet any other obligations in regards to 
> those repos that the TC delegates to project teams and PTLs - though 
> none of the ones I can think of (releases, tracking project-wide goals) 
> would really apply in practice to the repos we're talking about.
> Perhaps I am missing something that you have a specific concern with?
> It is *not* meant to imply that the project has an obligation to write 
> tests (nobody expects this, in fact), nor that the core reviewers it 
> contributes to the core review team for the repo have any stronger 
> obligation to do reviews than any of the other core reviewers (we really 
> want all 3 teams to contribute to reviews, since they each bring 
> different expertise).
> I think we have two options that could resolve this:
> * Change the wording to ensure that future readers cannot interpret the 
> resolution as placing obligations on the QA team that we didn't intend 
> and they do not want; or
> * Register the Git repos to the refstack project instead.
> cheers,
> Zane.
> [1] 
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/qa/2018/qa.2018-03-08-07.59.log.html#l-34
> [2] kidding! Everyone knows you can't have the sticker until after the 
> initiation ;)

Why would the repos be owned by anyone other than the original project


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list