[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Clarifying testing recommendation for interop programs

Colleen Murphy colleen at gazlene.net
Fri Jan 19 10:44:55 UTC 2018

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:52 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi <ken1ohmichi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-01-18 12:36 GMT-08:00 Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>:
>> 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.

I think the fuzziness between what we're colloquially calling "core"
(or sometimes "integrated"), what has tests in tempest, and what is
part of the original trademark program, is part of the problem.

As I understand it, designate and heat are not trying to become
"core". What they are applying for is to be part of a new subgroup
within the trademark program. The question at hand is, given that they
are not "core" (whatever that really means), but they are going to be
part of the trademark program, is there a technical reason they
shouldn't have some of their tests in tempest? And if not, is there a
social reason for it?


> Thanks
> Ken Ohmichi
> ---
> [1]: https://www.openstack.org/software/project-navigator

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list