Open Stack

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140731/d2d04287/attachment.pgp>