action #35766
closedcoordination #34102: [functional][y][epic] improve openqa/scripts
[functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Feasibility: Make openqa/scripts open source if possible, feasible and beneficial
0%
Description
Acceptance criteria¶
- AC1: At least a part of openqa/scripts is open sourced or we have a clear statement in a project README file why we do not want to do this
Suggestions¶
- Ask main stakeholders in this repo about their opinion, e.g. lnussel, coolo, qa-tools-team
- Create github project e.g. on os-autoinst/scripts, as replacement for parts of it or all
- Proper license (again, check with contributors)
- Replace previous location with redirect notice
- Ensure all references to old location - if changed - are updated
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Due date changed from 2018-05-22 to 2018-06-05
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Due date changed from 2018-06-05 to 2018-06-19
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Due date changed from 2018-06-19 to 2018-06-05
Updated by SLindoMansilla almost 6 years ago
- Subject changed from [functional][y] improve openqa/scripts - Make openqa/scripts open source if possible, feasible and beneficial to [functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Make openqa/scripts open source if possible, feasible and beneficial
Updated by riafarov almost 6 years ago
- Status changed from Workable to Feedback
https://gitlab.suse.de/openqa/scripts/merge_requests/212:
Idea was to evaluate what part of the scripts we can share with the
community, which is tricky. Hence adding reasoning why it's a project on
our internal gitlab in the README.
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
Well, I think we should not give up that easily :)
I suggest you reopen this and we can discuss next week
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to In Progress
ok, I read a bit from your MR to the README (only what I could figure out from notication emails without VPN) and sorry to say but it looks like you made it a bit too easy. Yes, the whole project as is can not simply be open sourced. Yes, direct descriptions of the internal infrastructure are tabu but that should not mean we can not separate that better to actually achieve this step. Compare the "fetchneedles" script we have in upstream openQA and the "fetchneedles-sles" script we have in gitlab. I guess we could do a similar route to success.
Updated by riafarov almost 6 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Feedback
AC is fulfilled, I've collected the feedback by asking people mentioned in the description. And we agreed that maintaining 2 repos would be painful. Let's discuss on Monday. I also don't see that neither as a priority, nor as a problem which will help us.
Updated by riafarov almost 6 years ago
- Related to coordination #36778: [functional][u][y][epic] improve openqa triggering mechanisms, standardize OBS/IBS deliverables structure, trigger jobs using other means added
Updated by riafarov almost 6 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
Outcome ticket here: #36778 Resolving this one.
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Copied to action #37447: [functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Replace openqa/scripts by an open source solution (or open source itself) added
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Copied to deleted (action #37447: [functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Replace openqa/scripts by an open source solution (or open source itself))
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Related to deleted (coordination #36778: [functional][u][y][epic] improve openqa triggering mechanisms, standardize OBS/IBS deliverables structure, trigger jobs using other means)
Updated by okurz almost 6 years ago
- Subject changed from [functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Make openqa/scripts open source if possible, feasible and beneficial to [functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Feasibility: Make openqa/scripts open source if possible, feasible and beneficial
Moved the outcome ticket to the parent for better visibility in an still open ticket