Open Stack

On 01/06/17 01:30, Matthew Treinish wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:45:52PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2017-05-31 15:22:59 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-31 09:43:11 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> it's news to me that they're considering reversing course. If the
>>>> QA team isn't going to continue, we'll need to figure out what
>>>> that means and potentially find another group to do it.
>>>
>>> I wasn't there for the discussion, but it sounds likely to be a
>>> mischaracterization. I'm going to assume it's not true (or much more
>>> nuanced) at least until someone responds on behalf of the QA team.
>>> This particular subthread is only going to go further into the weeds
>>> until it is grounded in some authoritative details.
>>
>> Apologies for replying to myself, but per discussion[*] with Chris
>> in #openstack-dev I'm adjusting the subject header to make it more
>> clear which particular line of speculation I consider weedy.
>>
>> Also in that brief discussion, Graham made it slightly clearer that
>> he was talking about pushback on the tempest repo getting tests for
>> new trademark programs beyond "OpenStack Powered Platform,"
>> "OpenStack Powered Compute" and "OpenStack Powered Object Storage."
> 
> TBH, it's a bit premature to have the discussion. These additional programs do
> not exist yet, and there is a governance road block around this. Right now the
> set of projects that can be used defcore/interopWG is limited to the set of 
> projects in:
> 
> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/tc_approved-release.html

Sure - but that is a solved problem, when the interop committee is
ready to propose them, they can add projects into that tag. Or am I
misunderstanding [1] (again)?

This *is* the time to discuss it, as these programs are aimed as
advisory for the 2018 spec - which means we need to solve these
problems, and soon.

> We had a forum session on it (I can't find the etherpad for the session) which
> was pretty speculative because it was about planning the new programs. Part of
> that discussion was around the feasibility of using tests in plugins and whether
> that would be desirable. Personally, I was in favor of doing that for some of
> the proposed programs because of the way they were organized it was a good fit.
> This is because the proposed new programs were extra additions on top of the
> base existing interop program. But it was hardly a definitive discussion.

Which will create 2 classes of testing for interop programs.

> We will have to have discussions about how we're going to actually implement
> the additional programs when we start to create them, but that's not happening
> yet.
> 

Except it is - at least one team has submitted capabilities, and others
are doing so at the moment.

1 - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/368240/

> -Matt Treinish
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 508 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170601/f38b2fd1/attachment.sig>