Open Stack

2018-01-18 12:36 GMT-08:00 Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>:
> Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2018-01-18 15:21:12 -0500:
>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 19:25:02 +0000:
>> >
>> > On 18/01/18 18:52, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> > > Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 17:52:39 +0000:
>> > >> On 18/01/18 16:25, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> > >>> Excerpts from Graham Hayes's message of 2018-01-18 15:33:12 +0000:
>> > >>
>> > >> <snip/>
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> In the past the QA team agreed to accept trademark-related tests from
>> > >>> all projects in the tempest repo. Has that changed?
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> There has not been an explict rejection but in all conversations the
>> > >> response has been "non core projects are outside the scope of tempest".
>> > >>
>> > >> Honestly, everytime we have tried to do something to core tempest
>> > >> we have had major pushback, and I want to clarify this before I or
>> > >> someone else put in the work of porting the base clients, getting CI
>> > >> configured*, and proposing the tests to tempest.
>> > >
>> > > OK.
>> > >
>> > > The current policy doesn't say anything about "core" or different
>> > > trademark programs or any other criteria.
>> > >
>> > >   The TC therefore encourages the DefCore committee to consider it an
>> > >   indication of future technical direction that we do not want tests
>> > >   outside of the Tempest repository used for trademark enforcement, and
>> > >   that any new or existing tests that cover capabilities they want to
>> > >   consider for trademark enforcement should be placed in Tempest.
>> > >
>> > > That all seems very clear to me (setting aside some specific word
>> > > choices like "future technical direction" that tie the resolution
>> > > to language in the bylaws).  Regardless of technical reasons why
>> > > it may not be necessary, we still have many social justifications
>> > > for doing it the way we originally set out to do it.  Tests related
>> > > to trademark enforcement need to go into the tempest repository.
>> > >
>> > > The way I think this should work (and the way I remember us describing
>> > > it at the time the policy was established) is the Interop WG
>> > > (previously DefCore) should identify capabilities and tests, then
>> > > ask project teams to reproduce those tests in the tempest repo.
>> > > When the tests land, they can be used by the trademark program.
>> > > Teams can also, at their leisure, decide whether to remove the
>> > > original versions of the tests from whatever repo they existed in
>> > > to begin with.
>> > >
>> > > Graham, you've proposed a new resolution with several options for
>> > > where to put tests for "add-on programs." I don't think we need
>> > > that resolution if we want the tests to continue to live in tempest.
>> > > The existing resolution doesn't qualify which tests, beyond "for
>> > > trademark enforcement" and more words won't make that more clear,
>> > > IMO.
>> > >
>> > > Now if you *do* want to change the policy, we should talk about
>> > > that.  But I can't tell whether you want to change it, you're worried
>> > > the policy is unclear, or it is not being followed.  Can you clarify
>> > > which it is?
>> >
>> > It is not being followed.
>> >
>> > I have brought this up at every forum session on these programs, and the
>> > people in the room from QA have *always* pushed back on it.
>>
>> OK, so that's a problem. I need to hear from the QA team why they've
>> reversed that decision.
>>
>> >
>> > And, for clarity (I saw this in a few logs) QA have *never* said that
>> > they will take the interop designated tests for the DNS project into
>> > openstack/tempest.
>>
>> When we approved the resolution that describes the current policy, the
>> QA team agreed that they would take tests for trademark. There was no
>> stipulation about which projects those apply to.
>
> I feel pretty sure that was discussed in a TC meeting, but I can't
> find that. I do find Matt and Ken'ichi voting +1 on the resolution
> itself.  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312718/. If I remember
> correctly, Ken'ichi was the PTL at the time.

Yeah, I have still agreed with the resolution.
When I voted +1 on that, core projects were defined as 6 projects like
Nova, Cinder, Glance, Keystone, Neutron and Swift.
And the project navigator also showed these 6 projects as core projects.
Now I cannot find such definition on the project navigator[1], the
definition has been changed?
I just want to clarify "is it true that designate and heat become core
projects?"
If there is a concrete decision, I don't have any objections against
that we have these projects tests in Tempest as the resolution.

Thanks
Ken Ohmichi

---
[1]: https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator