Open Stack

Hello all,

Thank you for your suggestions about tracking bps. I'll create a
spreadsheet.

David,

1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55276/ is ready for review
2. We decided to move base.py to a separate change request:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64304/ to make it merged ASAP. But now I
see that reviewers want to see an example of usage. We didn't wanted to add
any examples there. There are several changes that are abandoned now but
will be restored soon with dependency on 64304 (
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43481/,
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46745/). What do you think is it OK to
keep 64304 as a separate one?
3. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39237/ is In Progress because it should
be depended on 2.
4. Not sure why https://review.openstack.org/#/c/64299/ is a separate one.
It is a part of 1 now. I think it should be abandoned.

And about "ceilometer", "metering", "telemetry". Originally 'metering' was
used, but official was changed to 'telemetry'. I'm not the person who
resolved such questions but I guess that 'telemetry' is the final solution.
Anyway, I will discuss it with Julien.

Thanks,
Nadya


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, David Kranz <dkranz at redhat.com> wrote:

>  On 12/27/2013 05:27 AM, Nadya Privalova wrote:
>
>       Hello guys!
>
>  I hope all of you are enjoying the holidays! But I'd like to raise a
> Tempest question. Again. I hope this email will not be lost after vacations
> :)
>  After the summit we decided to track all tests that are being created for
> Ceilometer in Tempest here:
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tempest/+spec/add-basic-ceilometer-tests.
> Besides, we've created an etherpad page with a test plan
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ceilometer-test-plan.
>
>  But it turned out that it works very bad. Now we have at least 3 change
> requests that have common functionality implemented. So we definitely need
> more reliable mechanism for tracking any changes.
> That's why I suggest to create a separate blueprint for each
> functionality. E.g. "Ceilometer client for Tempest", "Notification testing"
> with several bps that depend on it ("Swift notifications", "Glance
> notifications", "Nova notifications") and so on. In future we may vary the
> detail level of blueprints but now we need very detailed ones because
> different people have started to work on e.g. notifications.
>  So there are the following action items:
>  1. Resolve all conflicts in changes that are on review now (see my
> comment to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39237/ patch set 21 for more
> details)
>  2. Create set of blueprints from the testplan we have
>  3. Add Tempest discussions to Ceilometer weekly meeting agenda (done)
>
>  I may take care of all the items above. I need only "ok" from PTLs and
> Cores.
>  Anyway, we've started working on 1st item, because it is urgent. The
> second one may be postponed due to holidays.
>
>  And one more important thing. Code review for Ceilometer tests in Tempest
> is too slow. Some of change requests are created almost a half a year ago!
> Ceilometer guys, please be informed. I think all of us are interested in
> good tests.
>
>  Thank you for attention,
>  Nadya
>
>
>  So the tempest patches for ceilometer are still not a coherent set. Can
> you please mark anything that is not ready for review as Work In Progress,
> or abandon until there is really something to review?
>
> Also, having looked at a few of these, I am confused about the usage of
> "ceilometer", "metering", "telemetry". Is there an explanation for the
> context in which each of these terms is to be used?
>
>  -David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131231/17f3ce29/attachment.html>