You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> on 2013/09/11 17:25:37 UTC

[PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

As mentioned on private, I think the reason we have so few responders when it comes to voting - is because it takes considerable amount of time to build, test and QA. And if you take voting serious as everyone should, you have to QA before you can vote.



Perhaps we should spent some time on automation and take an automation step further.



My next dream project is to create a set of 3 virtual appliances.



Set 1:

2 KVM Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS

1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code



Set 2:

2 XEN Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS

1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code



Set 3:

1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code



Set 3 get a bit hairy because of Virtual Center and licensing, so we abstract it and let folks QA what they have.

-------------------------------------------------

Do you find this approach useful, or do you believe the build tests we do is sufficient?

Who can join or atleast share scripts they use to automate provisioning of KVM and XEN hosts?

I'm looking for set of "post" scripts they can configure XEN and KVM end 2 end.

Thanks
ilya

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
shoot a time, you will miss some of us. how about wednesday 19:00 cet
this is the time the irc meeting used to be.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:27 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2013, at 8:24 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sebastien,
>>
>> Are you thinking november in Amsterdam, or before?
>
> I was thinking about a conference call - way before Amsterdam-
>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:25 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As mentioned on private, I think the reason we have so few responders when it comes to voting - is because it takes considerable amount of time to build, test and QA. And if you take voting serious as everyone should, you have to QA before you can vote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should spent some time on automation and take an automation step further.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My next dream project is to create a set of 3 virtual appliances.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Set 1:
>>>>
>>>> 2 KVM Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
>>>>
>>>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Set 2:
>>>>
>>>> 2 XEN Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
>>>>
>>>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Set 3:
>>>>
>>>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Set 3 get a bit hairy because of Virtual Center and licensing, so we abstract it and let folks QA what they have.
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Do you find this approach useful, or do you believe the build tests we do is sufficient?
>>>>
>>>> Who can join or atleast share scripts they use to automate provisioning of KVM and XEN hosts?
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for set of "post" scripts they can configure XEN and KVM end 2 end.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> ilya
>>>
>>> Ilya, I think this is in-line with what Marcus is proposing.
>>>
>>> In another thread on testing I proposed to have a meeting where anyone interested in testing can join and where we can hash out a plan, then report back to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -sebastien
>

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
so hijackit, are we on for wednesday morning/afternoon/evening/night?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.
>>>
>>> Disagreeing is fine - no one (least of all me) says that my opinion is
>>> right all of the time. :)
>>>
>>> Over time I've become less concerned about a feature working, and more
>>> concerned about changes in a feature breaking the rest of CloudStack.
>>
>> I will interpret this as a 'I concur' ;)
>
> :) Yes - that.
>
> --David

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.
>>
>> Disagreeing is fine - no one (least of all me) says that my opinion is
>> right all of the time. :)
>>
>> Over time I've become less concerned about a feature working, and more
>> concerned about changes in a feature breaking the rest of CloudStack.
>
> I will interpret this as a 'I concur' ;)

:) Yes - that.

--David

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
It's Dave Nalley's thread :-)

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Musayev, Ilya <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
> +1 for meeting, I was not aware that Marcus had a similar thread.
>
> I'm good for 17CET on Wednesday or if I'm reading this right, 11AM EST.
>
> http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/cet-to-est-converter
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:17 PM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> > I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.
>> >
>> > Disagreeing is fine - no one (least of all me) says that my opinion is
>> > right all of the time. :)
>> >
>> > Over time I've become less concerned about a feature working, and more
>> > concerned about changes in a feature breaking the rest of CloudStack.
>>
>> I will interpret this as a 'I concur' ;)
>
>

RE: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>.
+1 for meeting, I was not aware that Marcus had a similar thread.

I'm good for 17CET on Wednesday or if I'm reading this right, 11AM EST.

http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/cet-to-est-converter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:17 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing
> 
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.
> >
> > Disagreeing is fine - no one (least of all me) says that my opinion is
> > right all of the time. :)
> >
> > Over time I've become less concerned about a feature working, and more
> > concerned about changes in a feature breaking the rest of CloudStack.
> 
> I will interpret this as a 'I concur' ;)

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:12 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.
>
> Disagreeing is fine - no one (least of all me) says that my opinion is
> right all of the time. :)
>
> Over time I've become less concerned about a feature working, and more
> concerned about changes in a feature breaking the rest of CloudStack.

I will interpret this as a 'I concur' ;)

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A worthy cause, and we should all strive for it.  It does put extra
> constraints on things like db upgrade scripts however. If ACS is
> releasable at all times, can users make their own release and expect
> all upgrade paths to work?
>
> I disagreed with you on documentation as a commit criteria in another
> thread, David. I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.

Disagreeing is fine - no one (least of all me) says that my opinion is
right all of the time. :)

Over time I've become less concerned about a feature working, and more
concerned about changes in a feature breaking the rest of CloudStack.
Both are important - but I am to the point that I think that new
features (and bugfixes) need to demonstrate that they don't harm the
rest of ACS in the process. The real problem is that CloudStack is so
large in scope that not many understand the full scope of
interactions.

--David

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
A worthy cause, and we should all strive for it.  It does put extra
constraints on things like db upgrade scripts however. If ACS is
releasable at all times, can users make their own release and expect
all upgrade paths to work?

I disagreed with you on documentation as a commit criteria in another
thread, David. I do favor (extensive) unit tests as criteria.

Daan

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:05 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think this discussion should be linked with the discussion about minimum
>> requirements for a release (release criteria). It seems this discussion is
>> already being had to some degree.
>
>
> Agreed. I think release criteria are important - but really - release
> criteria should be commit criteria (or at least commit to a
> release/master branch) I think we get a better release by enforcing
> better quality standards all of the time - essentially keeping
> CloudStack 'releasable' at any point.
>
> --David

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this discussion should be linked with the discussion about minimum
> requirements for a release (release criteria). It seems this discussion is
> already being had to some degree.


Agreed. I think release criteria are important - but really - release
criteria should be commit criteria (or at least commit to a
release/master branch) I think we get a better release by enforcing
better quality standards all of the time - essentially keeping
CloudStack 'releasable' at any point.

--David

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
I think this discussion should be linked with the discussion about minimum
requirements for a release (release criteria). It seems this discussion is
already being had to some degree.
On Sep 16, 2013 5:27 AM, "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 15, 2013, at 8:24 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sebastien,
> >
> > Are you thinking november in Amsterdam, or before?
>
> I was thinking about a conference call - way before Amsterdam-
>
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:25 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As mentioned on private, I think the reason we have so few responders
> when it comes to voting - is because it takes considerable amount of time
> to build, test and QA. And if you take voting serious as everyone should,
> you have to QA before you can vote.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps we should spent some time on automation and take an automation
> step further.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My next dream project is to create a set of 3 virtual appliances.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Set 1:
> >>>
> >>> 2 KVM Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
> >>>
> >>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Set 2:
> >>>
> >>> 2 XEN Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
> >>>
> >>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Set 3:
> >>>
> >>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Set 3 get a bit hairy because of Virtual Center and licensing, so we
> abstract it and let folks QA what they have.
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Do you find this approach useful, or do you believe the build tests we
> do is sufficient?
> >>>
> >>> Who can join or atleast share scripts they use to automate
> provisioning of KVM and XEN hosts?
> >>>
> >>> I'm looking for set of "post" scripts they can configure XEN and KVM
> end 2 end.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> ilya
> >>
> >> Ilya, I think this is in-line with what Marcus is proposing.
> >>
> >> In another thread on testing I proposed to have a meeting where anyone
> interested in testing can join and where we can hash out a plan, then
> report back to the list.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -sebastien
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 15, 2013, at 8:24 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sebastien,
> 
> Are you thinking november in Amsterdam, or before?

I was thinking about a conference call - way before Amsterdam-

> 
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:25 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> As mentioned on private, I think the reason we have so few responders when it comes to voting - is because it takes considerable amount of time to build, test and QA. And if you take voting serious as everyone should, you have to QA before you can vote.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we should spent some time on automation and take an automation step further.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My next dream project is to create a set of 3 virtual appliances.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Set 1:
>>> 
>>> 2 KVM Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
>>> 
>>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Set 2:
>>> 
>>> 2 XEN Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
>>> 
>>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Set 3:
>>> 
>>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Set 3 get a bit hairy because of Virtual Center and licensing, so we abstract it and let folks QA what they have.
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Do you find this approach useful, or do you believe the build tests we do is sufficient?
>>> 
>>> Who can join or atleast share scripts they use to automate provisioning of KVM and XEN hosts?
>>> 
>>> I'm looking for set of "post" scripts they can configure XEN and KVM end 2 end.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> ilya
>> 
>> Ilya, I think this is in-line with what Marcus is proposing.
>> 
>> In another thread on testing I proposed to have a meeting where anyone interested in testing can join and where we can hash out a plan, then report back to the list.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -sebastien

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Sebastien,

Are you thinking november in Amsterdam, or before?

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:25 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned on private, I think the reason we have so few responders when it comes to voting - is because it takes considerable amount of time to build, test and QA. And if you take voting serious as everyone should, you have to QA before you can vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps we should spent some time on automation and take an automation step further.
>>
>>
>>
>> My next dream project is to create a set of 3 virtual appliances.
>>
>>
>>
>> Set 1:
>>
>> 2 KVM Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
>>
>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>
>>
>>
>> Set 2:
>>
>> 2 XEN Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
>>
>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>
>>
>>
>> Set 3:
>>
>> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
>>
>>
>>
>> Set 3 get a bit hairy because of Virtual Center and licensing, so we abstract it and let folks QA what they have.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Do you find this approach useful, or do you believe the build tests we do is sufficient?
>>
>> Who can join or atleast share scripts they use to automate provisioning of KVM and XEN hosts?
>>
>> I'm looking for set of "post" scripts they can configure XEN and KVM end 2 end.
>>
>> Thanks
>> ilya
>
> Ilya, I think this is in-line with what Marcus is proposing.
>
> In another thread on testing I proposed to have a meeting where anyone interested in testing can join and where we can hash out a plan, then report back to the list.
>
>
>
> -sebastien

Re: [PROPOSAL][SIMPLIFY] Future ACS RC testing

Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:25 PM, "Musayev, Ilya" <im...@webmd.net> wrote:

> As mentioned on private, I think the reason we have so few responders when it comes to voting - is because it takes considerable amount of time to build, test and QA. And if you take voting serious as everyone should, you have to QA before you can vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should spent some time on automation and take an automation step further.
> 
> 
> 
> My next dream project is to create a set of 3 virtual appliances.
> 
> 
> 
> Set 1:
> 
> 2 KVM Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
> 
> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
> 
> 
> 
> Set 2:
> 
> 2 XEN Hypervisors preconfigured with NFS
> 
> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
> 
> 
> 
> Set 3:
> 
> 1 CloudStack MS with latest RC code
> 
> 
> 
> Set 3 get a bit hairy because of Virtual Center and licensing, so we abstract it and let folks QA what they have.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> Do you find this approach useful, or do you believe the build tests we do is sufficient?
> 
> Who can join or atleast share scripts they use to automate provisioning of KVM and XEN hosts?
> 
> I'm looking for set of "post" scripts they can configure XEN and KVM end 2 end.
> 
> Thanks
> ilya

Ilya, I think this is in-line with what Marcus is proposing.

In another thread on testing I proposed to have a meeting where anyone interested in testing can join and where we can hash out a plan, then report back to the list.



-sebastien