-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.7k
doc: add the smoke test working group #2317
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
@@ -205,6 +205,24 @@ Their responsibilities are: | |||
The current members can be found in their | |||
[README](https://github.com/nodejs/nan#collaborators). | |||
|
|||
### [Smoke Test](https://github.com/nodejs/smoke-test) | |||
|
|||
The Smoke Test Working Group is repsonsible for making sure releases of Node.js |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
responsible
Will squash
LGTM... but definitely please squash the commits ;-) |
### [Smoke Test](https://github.com/nodejs/smoke-test) | ||
|
||
The Smoke Test Working Group is responsible for making sure releases of Node.js | ||
and io.js do not break community modules. Smoke test will build the tooling and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No more io.js :D
Also, can we change the sentence to
"Smoke test WG will build the tools and maintain the necessary infrastructure."
As an alternative to charting a smoketest WG separately, I'd like to propose making smoketesting part of the LTS WG charter: nodejs/Release#48 (comment) |
@wraithan ... ping... should we keep this one open? not sure there's still a reason to at this point. |
I think this can be closed. I don't think the SmokeTest WG is active. It seems that @thealphanerd has largely taken over CITGM work from @jasnell and that's about all that's going on in the SmokeTest world. Feel free to re-open if I'm wrong, although I suspect that even if I'm wrong, a new PR may be more appropriate than re-opening this one. (I'm not even sure the Smoke Test group was ever even chartered by the TSC?) |
This should not be merged yet
@nodejs/smoke-test needs to review this to make sure I've represented us (I guess I'm part of it now as well) accurately. I put this together as a rough draft to kick off the process.
Also, discussing whether we should be an independent working group or if this should be folded into one of the other working groups.
In my opinion, because this will be very critical to @nodejs/lts but also critical to @nodejs/build and this will be shared infrastructure, it should be ran independently with stakeholders from both keeping involved. I think this is already the case from the seed list of members.
Note: Some of the links, like the collaborator one are not active as I need to put together the readme and the initial governance stuff in the https://github.com/nodejs/smoke-test repo.