<div dir="ltr">Sean, David <div><br></div><div>So seems like I am better in writing code then english, sorry for that=)</div><div><br></div><div>Let me try to explain my position and try to make this situation clear. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We have the great program "QA" that helps to keep OpenStack working (automation of testing, unit/function/integration tests, log analyze, elastic recheck, dsvm jobs and so on).</div><div>I really appreciate what you guys are doing, and thank you for that! </div>
<div><br></div><div>But the scope of what Rally team is working on is quite different. </div><div>It's more about Operations cases e.g. making it simple to understand what is happening inside </div><div>production OpenStack clouds (especially under load). To do that, it's not enough just to write tools</div>
<div>(like Rally), it requires extending OpenStack API, to make it simple to retrieve via OpenStack API audit information (profiling data - OSprofiler, querying logs - LogaaS, configuration discovery - Satori), which is really out of scope of QA (it should be done inside OpenStack projects, not on top of them).</div>
<div><br></div><div>And to coordinate this job we should have Program "Operations" for that. </div><div><br></div><div>The reason why this program is called "Performance & Scalability" and not "Operations" is that current Rally team scope is "Performance & Scalability". But as I see Rally team really would like to extend it's scope to "Operations". So "Performance & Scalability" should be the first piece of big "Operation" program (that includes such projects like: rally, osprofiler, logaas, satori, rubick and probably some others)<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>So let's move to the Operation program with "baby steps". </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Boris Pavlovic </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Sean Dague <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sean@dague.net" target="_blank">sean@dague.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On 07/22/2014 11:58 AM, David Kranz wrote:<br>
> On 07/22/2014 10:44 AM, Sean Dague wrote:<br>
>> Honestly, I'm really not sure I see this as a different program, but is<br>
>> really something that should be folded into the QA program. I feel like<br>
>> a top level effort like this is going to lead to a lot of duplication in<br>
>> the data analysis that's currently going on, as well as functionality<br>
>> for better load driver UX.<br>
>><br>
>> -Sean<br>
> +1<br>
> It will also lead to pointless discussions/arguments about which<br>
> activities are part of "QA" and which are part of<br>
> "Performance and Scalability Testing".<br>
><br>
> QA Program mission:<br>
><br>
> " Develop, maintain, and initiate tools and plans to ensure the upstream<br>
> stability and quality of OpenStack, and its release readiness at any<br>
> point during the release cycle."<br>
><br>
> It is hard to see how $subj falls outside of that mission. Of course<br>
> rally would continue to have its own repo, review team, etc. as do<br>
> tempest and grenade.<br>
<br>
</div>Right, 100% agreed. Rally would remain with it's own repo + review team,<br>
just like grenade.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
-Sean<br>
</font></span><div><br>
--<br>
Sean Dague<br>
<a href="http://dague.net" target="_blank">http://dague.net</a><br>
<br>
</div><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>