action #34102: [functional][y][epic] improve openqa/scripts
[functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Replace openqa/scripts by an open source solution (or open source itself)
|Category:||Enhancement to existing tests|
|Target version:||QA - future|
- AC1: openSUSE contributors that do not have access to any SUSE internal repos have access to all scripts being used to trigger any tests on openqa.opensuse.org
- 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
#5 Updated by okurz over 1 year ago
- Priority changed from Low to Normal
- Target version changed from future to Milestone 21
IMHO we have seen with guillaume_g and michel_mno who care about openSUSE aarch64 and ppc64le that we would save time if they could create pull requests to change the openqa/scripts repo content.
#6 Updated by okurz over 1 year ago
- Subject changed from [functional][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Replace openqa/scripts by an open source solution (or open source itself) to [functional][y][medium] improve openqa/scripts - Replace openqa/scripts by an open source solution (or open source itself)
#7 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago
Discussed with coolo.
My proposal is to create a repo within https://github.com/os-autoinst used for "administration" of o3, e.g. just https://github.com/os-autoinst/o3 . The repo should store salt recipes which might include configuration files which are managed by salt. This can also include files from http://gitlab.suse.de/openqa/scripts/ e.g. rsync.pl and rsync_opensuse.pm but not the password and rsync_sle.pm and such. The internal repo should reference the external one e.g. as git submodule then.
coolo mentions the repo is too complicated/embarrasing/complicated for outside contributors to be able to contribute but my assessment is that the internal competence is not much better ;)
#9 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Due date deleted (
- Target version changed from Milestone 21 to Milestone 22
Shortly discussed in the QSF-y sprint planning and we agreed that the current description is not clear enough to everyone. We could see that AC1 is actually already covered as is of now so we should update that as well.
#10 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago
- Description updated (diff)
#15 Updated by okurz about 1 year ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Workable
- Assignee deleted (
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
- Target version changed from Milestone 22 to future
haven't received any feedback. I assume this means silent consensus and we should be able move forward. However, as the team does not see that much value in this we reduce priority.