[Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

[Daniel Alley]

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 at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180205/3df9b980/attachment.htm>