Open Stack

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:46:51AM -0400, David Kranz wrote:
> I have been reviewing some of these specs and sense a lack of clarity around
> what is expected. In the pre-qa-specs world we did not want tempest
> blueprints to be used by projects to track their tempest test submissions
> because the core review team did not want to have to spend a lot of time
> dealing with that. We said that each project could have one tempest
> blueprint that would point to some other place (project blueprints,
> spreadsheet, etherpad, etc.) that would track specific tests to be added.
> I'm not sure what aspect of the new qa-spec process would make us feel
> differently about this. Has this policy changed? We should spell out the
> expectation in any event. I will update the README when we have a
> conclusion.
> 

The policy has not changed. There should be 1 BP (or maybe 2 or 3 if they want
to split the effort a bit more granularly for tracking different classes of
tests, but still 1 BP series) for improving project tests. For individual tests
part of a bigger effort should be tracked outside of the Tempest LP. IMO after
it's approved the spec/BP for tracking test additions is only really useful to
have a unified topic to use for review classification.

Also, to be fair I'm not sure things were clear before we moved to specs. When I
cleaned up the BP list at the beginning of the cycle there were a couple of BPs
on the list which didn't conform to this. 


-Matt Treinish
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140616/03f757b2/attachment.pgp>