[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

Jeremy, I don't think David was continuing our line of discussion on policy, but rather rebutting the original idea that Github's "required checks" be enforced for all plugins.  That goes back to the whole difference between having a policy that requires green tests and making it physically impossible to merge PRs without them.  Maybe some plugins want a policy and some plugins are fine with hard required checks on Github, but the latter shouldn't be enforced on everyone - is what I think David was saying.

Also, my understanding is that pulp_deb is not strictly under our control, but that we're hosting it specifically to let misa use our QA infrastructure, and because we might want to productise it at some point in the future.

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet redhat com> wrote:
> Regarding the plugin repos, last year we talked about plugins being completely autonomous (aside from abiding by our Code of Conduct). Wouldn’t setting the required checks for projects like pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, etc violate this autonomy? In other words, shouldn’t we let plugin teams decide their own policy and what checks to enable?

Are pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, and so on autonomous projects? The fact that they're hosted on GitHub under the pulp organization [1] indicates that they're under our control. Since they're under our control, we get to set the rules. If any of these projects really are autonomous, then somebody please kick them out of the pulp organization.

If I was writing paychecks to a team of devs, and they refused to adopt basic QA processes for their projects, I'd happily fire the entire dev team. I can't be the only one who's had this thought.

[1] https://github.com/pulp

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]