Open Stack

On 10 June 2014 15:07, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> Exposing which configurations are actively "tested" is a perfectly sane
> thing to do. I don't see why you think calling this "certification" is
> necessary to achieve your goals.

What is certification except a formal way of saying 'we tested it'? At
least when you test it enough to have some degree of confidence in
your testing.

That's *exactly* what certification means.

> I don't know what you mean be "others
> imposing their idea of certification".

I mean that if some company or vendor starts claiming 'Product X is
certified for use with cinder', that is bad for the cinder core team,
since we didn't define what got tested or to what degree.

Whether we like it or not, when something doesn't work in cinder, it
is rare for people to blame the storage vendor in their complaints.
'Cinder is broken' is what we hear (and I've heard it, even though
what they meant is 'my storage vendor hasn't tested or updated their
driver in two releases', that isn't what they /said/). Since cinder,
and therefore cinder-core, is going to get the blame, I feel we should
try to maintain some degree of control over the claims.

If we run our own minimal certification program, which is what we've
started doing (started with a script which did a test run and tried to
require vendors to run it, that didn't work out well so we're now
requiring CI integration instead), then we at least have the option of
saying 'You're running an non-certified product, go talk to your
vendor' when dealing with the cases we have no control over. Vendors
that don't follow the CI & cert requirements eventually get their
driver removed, that simple.



-- 
Duncan Thomas