Re: Proposal to Change CATs Ownership
Michael Fraenkel <michael.fraenkel@...>
All the teams have to deal with a workflow and bumping. I don't believetoggle quoted message Show quoted text
there is a team that doesn't have to also deploy CF with Diego (except
mine) and run CATs.
The issue I believe you are highlighting is something different. CAPI
needs a CAPI acceptance for its new features which have no CLI
counterpart. In the past CATs contained that. I think now that CATs now
includes DATs and RATs and xATs, its not part of one team. If CAPI needs
a place to test out new functions using cf curl, that can either live in
CATs or it goes some where else. CATs should be what an end user will
attempt which is hopefully not driving CF via 'cf curl'.
Having CATs live under any one release is a problem for any other team
that uses it and provides code. Any changes are gated by someone merging
a commit and making it through a pipeline that includes other changes
that maybe should not be consumed by others since its not part of the
"release" because we will get additional components from the CAPI
release that may not be ready.
On 3/23/16 2:43 PM, Utako Ueda wrote:
We had a series of meetings to figure out a good path for CATs that