14:00:24 <hongbo> #startmeeting dovetail weekly meeting
14:00:24 <collabot> Meeting started Fri Oct 14 14:00:24 2016 UTC.  The chair is hongbo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:24 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:00:24 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'dovetail_weekly_meeting'
14:01:26 <hongbo> #info roll name
14:01:36 <hongbo> #info Hongbo Tian
14:02:22 <leo_wang> #info leo
14:04:23 <hongbo> #link https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Candidate+Dovetail+test+use+cases
14:05:39 <hongbo> #topic Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream
14:08:44 <hongbo> #info Chris said we raise that to the c&C meeting
14:12:53 <hongbo> #info dave we start continue to the conversation of this, and to the  C&C
14:16:50 <Wenjing> submitted should be "accepted"
14:17:18 <Wenjing> in the the topic title
14:18:24 <hongbo> I can not hear you all clear due to the bad network
14:19:52 <leo_wang> i can hear nothing,...
14:22:08 <dneary> #info Dave proposes that we agree to recommend that the OPNFV reference platform should not require patches which have not been accepted upstream to be able to pass the Dovetail test suite
14:24:01 <dneary> #info Dave gives two examples: SFC requires an NSH patch to OVS which is not upstream, and the RT_PREEMPT patches which are not completely integrated into the kernel. So real-time kernel or NSH enabled OVS should not be required to pass Dovetail tests.
14:24:28 <dneary> #info Chris says that "upstream" needs clearer definition, since many new projects can be considered "upstreams"
14:25:15 <dneary> #info Dave asks whether we need to maintain a list of upstream projects and their reference tree
14:28:29 <dneary> #info Dave proposes "Dovetail tests may not rely on patches which have not been accepted into the main source tree of an open source project required as a dependency of an OPNFV scenario"
14:29:06 <dneary> Wenjing: Dave proposes "Dovetail tests may not rely on patches which have not been accepted into the main source tree of an open source project required as a dependency of an OPNFV scenario"
14:32:42 <hongbo> i can not hear you wenjing...
14:42:22 <dneary> #info We have moved on to debating scenarios, and whether it is appropriate to require that multiple stacks/scenarios must support a feature before we add it to Dovetail
14:44:13 <dneary> #info Chris says, if one project supports upstream a feature which is important to us, and a competing community is not interested, or does not accept a patch enabling it
14:47:08 <dneary> #info Dave argues that it would be seen as a political statement in favour of one project over another. Chris argues that refusing to add a feature will be seen as a political statement too
14:48:41 <dneary> #info Chris has issues with limiting feature verification to features present in multiple stacks. Dave responds that exercising features is not the role of Dovetail.
14:50:10 <dneary> #info Wenjing says there is general consensus on requiring that patches be accepted upstream, and asks if we need to add a loophole to allow exceptions
14:51:34 <dneary> #info Dave says that we should not add an exception rule, but if in the future the Dovetail committers agree to accept an exception, we will have the authority to do that.
14:51:58 <dneary> In other words, if we have an exception written in the rules, it will be used too often.
14:53:28 <dneary> #info Zenghui agrees that patches should be upstream, and Dovetail can decide which scenarios to target for Dovetail test case validation
14:57:13 <dneary> #info We agreed that the "Out of scope" section can be removed from the requirements document
14:57:38 <dneary> #info We agreed to defer discussion of multiple scenario question due to lack of consensus
14:57:57 <dneary> #info We agreed to include an upstream requirement in the test case requirements
14:58:33 <dneary> #info On test case documentation, Chris proposed to review the documentation requirements to make it clearer what his expectations for test cases are
14:58:41 <dneary> #topic Wiki clean-up
14:59:22 <dneary> #info Wenjing brought up the need to be more rigorous about recording meeting agendas and minutes, and proposed that we need to re-organize the top-level of the wiki
15:00:35 <dneary> #info Dave agrees to help with the wiki re-organization
15:00:42 <dneary> #endmeeting