Open Stack

Sorry, I do feel like it's kind of crazy and irresponsible to throw data
out there with something as wrong as 'OpenStack doesn't test QEMU' and
then follow that up with 'Oh, file a bug to fix it!'.

Then promote it to something as prominent as stackalytics.

I mean... guys... seriously? :)

	-Sean

On 06/10/2014 12:48 PM, Boris Renski wrote:
> Thanks Jay.
> 
> Whatever inaccuracies or errors you see with DriverLog, please file a
> bug or an update request:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/DriverLog#How_To:_Add_a_new_driver_to_DriverLog.
> 
> 
> Also, we are more than happy to hear any suggestions on what information
> to display and how to call what. As pointed out earlier in the thread,
> for the exact reasons raised by Anita and Eoghan, there is no mention of
> certified anywhere in DriverLog.
> 
> -Boris
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Sorry, replied to wrong ML...
> 
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
>     Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:37:38 -0400
>     From: Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>
>     To: openstack-tc at lists.openstack.__org
>     <mailto:openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org>
> 
>     On 06/10/2014 09:53 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> 
>         On 06/10/2014 09:14 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
> 
>             On 06/10/2014 04:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 
>                 On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
>                     On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn
>                     <eglynn at redhat.com <mailto:eglynn at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>                             Based on the discussion I'd like to propose
>                             these options:
>                             1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an
>                             attempt to move the "certification"
>                             to the project level.
>                             2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the
>                             most accurate, at least for what
>                             we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous
>                             Integration of Vendor-specific
>                             Drivers.
> 
> 
>                         Hi Ramy,
> 
>                         Thanks for these constructive suggestions.
> 
>                         The second option is certainly a very direct and
>                         specific reflection of
>                         what is actually involved in getting the Cinder
>                         project's imprimatur.
> 
> 
>                     I do like "tested."
> 
>                     I'd like to understand what the foundation is
>                     planning for
>                     "certification" as well, to know how big of an issue
>                     this really is.
>                     Even if they aren't going to certify drivers, I have
>                     heard discussions
>                     around training and possibly other areas so I would
>                     hate for us to
>                     introduce confusion by having different uses of that
>                     term in similar
>                     contexts. Mark, do you know who is working on that
>                     within the board or
>                     foundation?
> 
> 
>                 http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/__2014/05/17/may-11-openstack-__foundation-board-meeting/
>                 <http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/05/17/may-11-openstack-foundation-board-meeting/>
> 
>                 Boris Renski raised the possibility of the Foundation
>                 attaching the
>                 trademark to a verified, certified or tested status for
>                 drivers. It
>                 wasn't discussed at length because board members hadn't
>                 been briefed in
>                 advance, but I think it's safe to say there was a
>                 knee-jerk negative
>                 reaction from a number of members. This is in the
>                 context of the
>                 DriverLog report:
> 
>                    http://stackalytics.com/__report/driverlog
>                 <http://stackalytics.com/report/driverlog>
>                  
>                  http://www.mirantis.com/blog/__cloud-drivers-openstack-__driverlog-part-1-solving-__driver-problem/
>                 <http://www.mirantis.com/blog/cloud-drivers-openstack-driverlog-part-1-solving-driver-problem/>
>                  
>                  http://www.mirantis.com/blog/__openstack-will-open-source-__vendor-certifications/
>                 <http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-will-open-source-vendor-certifications/>
> 
>                 AIUI the "CI tested" phrase was chosen in DriverLog to
>                 avoid the
>                 controversial area Boris describes in the last link
>                 above. I think that
>                 makes sense. Claiming this CI testing replaces more
>                 traditional
>                 certification programs is a sure way to bog potentially
>                 useful
>                 collaboration down in vendor politics.
> 
>             Actually FWIW the DriverLog is not posting accurate
>             information, I came
>             upon two instances yesterday where I found the information
>             "questionable" at best. I know I questioned it. Kyle and I
>             have agreed
>             to not rely on the DriverLog information as it currently
>             stands as a way
>             of assessing the fitness of third party CI systems. I'll add
>             some
>             footnotes for those who want more details. [%%], [++], [&&]
> 
> 
>                 Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of
>                 politics is something
>                 I'm really keen on, and why I think the word
>                 "certification" is best
>                 avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to
>                 achieve.
> 
>                 Mark.
> 
>             I agree with Mark, everytime we try to 'abstract' away from
>             logs and put
>             an new interface on it, the focus moves to the interface and
>             folks stop
>             paying attention to logs. We archive and have links to
>             artifacts for a
>             reason and I think we need to encourage and support people
>             to access
>             these artifacts and draw their own conclusions, which is in
>             keeping with
>             our license.
> 
>             Copy/pasting Mark here:
>             "Also AIUI "certification" implies some level of warranty or
>             guarantee,
>             which goes against the pretty clear language "WITHOUT
>             WARRANTIES OR
>             CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND" in our license :)" [**]
> 
> 
>         Honestly, the bigger issue I've got at this point is that
>         driverlog is
>         horribly inaccurate. Based on DriverLog you'd see that we don't
>         test KVM
>         or QEMU at all, only XenAPI.
> 
> 
>     Then shouldn't the focus be on both reporting bugs to DriverLog [1] and
>     fixing these inaccuracies? DriverLog doesn't use the term "certified"
>     anywhere, for the record.
> 
>     It is an honest best effort to provide some insight into the testability
>     of various drivers in the OpenStack ecosystem in a more up-to-date way
>     than outdated wiki pages showing matrixes of support for something.
> 
>     It's an alpha project that can and will have bugs. I can absolutely
>     guarantee you that the developers of the DriverLog project are more
>     interested in getting accurate information shown in the interface than
>     with any of the politics around the word "certified".
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     -jay
> 
>     [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/__driverlog
>     <https://bugs.launchpad.net/driverlog>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _________________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.__org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev <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
> 


-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140610/fa575127/attachment.pgp>