Re: Proposal to Change CATs Ownership
Michael Fraenkel <michael.fraenkel@...>
All the teams have to deal with a workflow and bumping. I don't believe
toggle 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. - Michael 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 |
|