Open Stack

Thierry,

I like "Operations" name for this program. It totally makes sense as we can
keep this name and extend just mission of this program to include such
projects like satori, rubick, logaas and others in future.


Sylvian,

Thank you for your input.

In my opinion, having 2 separated programs doesn't mean that these 2
programs shouldn't collaborate and work together. Imho we are all one big
community and should help each other.

Actually the goal of "Operations" program is to be able to organize
centralized work on OpenStack API that will provide for OpenStack Operators
everything required to analyze how live production OpenStack cloud perform.
And in case of issues, to be able fast to detect and debug them.

If we present this via OpenStack APi, it will just make a life of QA
simpler, because they won't need to do all this via scripts in gates (which
is much harder task)


Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic




On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Sylvain Bauza <sbauza at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> Le 02/08/2014 04:31, Alex Freedland a écrit :
>
> Angus,
>
>  Rally is designed as an operations tool. Its purpose is to run a
> production cloud and give an operator tools and data to profile a
> production cloud. It is intended as a first of many such tools.
>
>  There is a strong support in the community that operations tools should
> be developed as part of OpenStack and Rally is the first such successful
> community effort.
>
>  I can envision other tools building a community around them and they too
> should become part of OpenStack operations tooling.  Maybe Operator Tools
> program would be a better name?
>
>
>
>
> Some tooling exists already for development purposes : Devstack, Grenade,
> Tempest for the one most known. All of them are part of the QA program,
> except Devstack which is probably soon to be integrated as well in that QA
> program (see [1])
>
>
> IMHO, there are 2 distinct concerns :
>  - either we consider that Rally is another great tool for qualifying
> OpenStack releases, and then IMHO, the QA Program mission statement can
> cover this.
>  - or, we consider that Rally is for operations only (IMHO we would loose
> some benefits then) and then possibly a new program could make sense. That
> said, by looking at the Deployment Program mission statement, I'm thinking
> that Rally could be part of, as it would be a gread addition for TripleO
> deployments.
>
> -Sylvain
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/041731.html
>
>
>
>
> Alex Freedland
> Co-Founder
> Mirantis, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Angus Salkeld <
> angus.salkeld at rackspace.com> wrote:
>
>>  On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 07:57 -0700, Sean Dague wrote:
>> > On 07/26/2014 05:51 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 12:18 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> > >> On 07/22/2014 11:58 AM, David Kranz wrote:
>> > >>> On 07/22/2014 10:44 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> > >>>> Honestly, I'm really not sure I see this as a different program,
>> but is
>> > >>>> really something that should be folded into the QA program. I feel
>> like
>> > >>>> a top level effort like this is going to lead to a lot of
>> duplication in
>> > >>>> the data analysis that's currently going on, as well as
>> functionality
>> > >>>> for better load driver UX.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>  -Sean
>> > >>> +1
>> > >>> It will also lead to pointless discussions/arguments about which
>> > >>> activities are part of "QA" and which are part of
>> > >>> "Performance and Scalability Testing".
>> > >
>> > > I think that those discussions will still take place, it will just be
>> on
>> > > a per repository basis, instead of a per program one.
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Right, 100% agreed. Rally would remain with it's own repo + review
>> team,
>> > >> just like grenade.
>> > >>
>> > >>    -Sean
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Is the concept of a separate review team not the point of a program?
>> > >
>> > > In the the thread from Designate's Incubation request Thierry said
>> [1]:
>> > >
>> > >> "Programs" just let us bless goals and teams and let them organize
>> > >> code however they want, with contribution to any code repo under that
>> > >> umbrella being considered "official" and ATC-status-granting.
>> > >
>> > > I do think that this is something that needs to be clarified by the
>> TC -
>> > > Rally could not get a PTL if they were part of the QA project, but
>> every
>> > > time we get a program request, the same discussion happens.
>> > >
>> > > I think that mission statements can be edited to fit new programs as
>> > > they occur, and that it is more important to let teams that have been
>> > > working closely together to stay as a distinct group.
>> >
>> > My big concern here is that many of the things that these efforts have
>> > been doing are things we actually want much closer to the base. For
>> > instance, metrics on Tempest runs.
>> >
>> > When Rally was first created it had it's own load generator. It took a
>> > ton of effort to keep the team from duplicating that and instead just
>> > use some subset of Tempest. Then when measuring showed up, we actually
>> > said that is something that would be great in Tempest, so whoever ran
>> > it, be it for Testing, Monitoring, or Performance gathering, would have
>> > access to that data. But the Rally team went off in a corner and did it
>> > otherwise. That's caused the QA team to have to go and redo this work
>> > from scratch with subunit2sql, in a way that can be consumed by multiple
>> > efforts.
>> >
>> > So I'm generally -1 to this being a separate effort on the basis that so
>> > far the team has decided to stay in their own sandbox instead of
>> > participating actively where many of us thing the functions should be
>> > added. I also think this isn't like Designate, because this isn't
>> > intended to be part of the integrated release.
>>
>>  From reading Boris's email it seems like rally will provide a horizon
>> panel and api to back it (for the operator to kick of performance runs
>> and view stats). So this does seem like something that would be a
>> part of the integrated release (if I am reading things correctly).
>>
>> Is the QA program happy to extend their scope to include that?
>> QA could become "Quality Assurance of upstream code and running
>> OpenStack installations". If not we need to find some other program
>> for rally.
>>
>> -Angus
>>
>> >
>> > Of course you could decide to slice up the universe in a completely
>> > different way, but we have toolchains today, which I think the focus
>> > should be on participating there.
>> >
>> >       -Sean
>> >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.orghttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140804/ec40f72c/attachment.html>