Open Stack

+1

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Anastasia Urlapova <aurlapova at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only
> > experimental feature(s).
>
> +1, absolutely agree, but we should determine count of allowed bugs for
> experimental features against severity.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Nikolay Markov <nmarkov at mirantis.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Probably, even "experimental feature" should at least pretend to be
>> working, anyway, or it shouldn't be publically announced. But I think
>> it's important to describe limitation of this features (or mark some
>> of them as "untested") and I think list of known issues with links to
>> most important bugs is a good approach. And tags will just make things
>> simpler.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> May be we can use tag per feature, for example "zabbix"
>> >
>> > Tags are ok, but I still think that we can mention at least some
>> > significant bugs. For example, if some feature doesn't work in some
>> > deployment mode (e.g. simple, with ceilometer, etc) we can at least
>> > notify users so they even don't try.
>> >
>> > Another opinions?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Mike Scherbakov
>> > <mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> >>> if we point somewhere about knowing issues in those experimental
>> features
>> >> there are might be dozens of bugs.
>> >> May be we can use tag per feature, for example "zabbix", so it will be
>> easy
>> >> to search in LP all open bugs regarding Zabbix feature?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <
>> ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect
>> only
>> >>> > experimental feature(s).
>> >>>
>> >>> +1, I'm totally agree with you - it makes no sense to count
>> >>> experimental bugs as HCF criteria.
>> >>>
>> >>> > Any objections / other ideas?
>> >>>
>> >>> I think it would be great for customers if we point somewhere about
>> >>> knowing issues in those experimental features. IMHO, it should help
>> >>> them to understand what's wrong in case of errors and may prevent bug
>> >>> duplication in LP.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Mike Scherbakov
>> >>> <mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> > what about using "experimental" tag for experimental features?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > After we implemented feature groups [1], we can divide our features
>> and
>> >>> > for
>> >>> > complex features, or those which don't get enough QA resources in
>> the
>> >>> > dev
>> >>> > cycle, we can declare as experimental. It would mean that those are
>> not
>> >>> > production ready features.
>> >>> > Giving them live still in experimental mode allows early adopters to
>> >>> > give a
>> >>> > try and bring a feedback to the development team.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect
>> only
>> >>> > experimental feature(s). At the moment, we have Zabbix as
>> experimental
>> >>> > feature, and Patching of OpenStack [2] is under consideration: if
>> today
>> >>> > QA
>> >>> > doesn't approve it to be as ready for production use, we have no
>> other
>> >>> > choice. All deadlines passed, and we need to get 5.1 finally out.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Any objections / other ideas?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > [1]
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-specs/blob/master/specs/5.1/feature-groups.rst
>> >>> > [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/patch-openstack
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Mike Scherbakov
>> >>> > #mihgen
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mike Scherbakov
>> >> #mihgen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Nick Markov
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.ru/>
www.mirantis.ru
vkuklin at mirantis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140911/827e1b08/attachment.html>