[openstack-dev] [Interop-wg] [QA] [PTG] [Interop] [Designate] [Heat] [TC]: QA PTG Summary- Interop test for adds-on project
doug at doughellmann.com
Fri Mar 9 00:31:00 UTC 2018
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-03-08 15:51:05 -0500:
> On 08/03/18 12:57, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > Why would the repos be owned by anyone other than the original project
> > team?
> A few reasons I think it makes sense in this instance:
> * Not every set of trademark tests will necessarily belong to a single
> project. Tempest itself is an example of this - in fact that's basically
> how the QA program came to exist. Vertical-specific trademark programs
> are another example that we anticipate in the future.
> * Allowing projects to create their own repos means that there's no
> co-ordination point to ensure e.g. a consistent naming scheme. Amongst
> other things, this could potentially cause confusion about which plugins
> are trademark-candidates-only and which are just regular tempest plugins.
If these new plugins might contain "candidate" tests and all tests
are potentially candidates, how are these new repos different from
the existing repos that already contain all of the tests? It seems
like at least part of the problem with the current system was
triggered by confusion about when to move tests around to satisfy
the policy. Can we avoid that problem with the new system? If we're
not going to move the tests into Tempest itself and have the QA
team manage them, why not simply take the tests from the repos where
they already live?
> * By registering trademark plugins all in one place it makes it easy to
> determine how many there are, which plugins exist (e.g. are there any
> extant plugins that are not referenced by refstack? This is a question
> you can answer in 20s if they're all registered in the same place.)
> * The goal is for maintenance of these plugins to be a collaborative
> effort by the project team, the QA team, and RefStack. If the first step
> for a project establishing a trademark test plugin involves the project
> team reaching out to the QA team then that's a good foot to start on. If
> teams create the repos in their own projects and fly under QA's radar
> then QA folks might not even be aware that they've become core reviewers
> on the repo.
I thought the QA team no longer wanted to be responsible for these
extra tests. Has that changed again? I've lost track of everyone's
positions, I'm afraid. Maybe we could get people to start voting
on the actual resolutions so it's easier to keep track of that?
As you pointed out earlier, when contributors to a repo are allowed
to vote in the election for the team lead that owns the repo. We
should think through the implications of that fact when we consider
who will own these new repos (if we actually need anything new and
we can't just use the existing repos).
> I guess we have examples of both models in the community... e.g.
> puppet-openstack vs. Horizon plugins. I wonder if there are any lessons
> we can draw on to see which works better, and when.
More information about the OpenStack-dev