+1, please. - Thejaka Amila
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Suresh Marru <sma...@apache.org> wrote: > On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I was thinking of an actual checklist where we can check-off/vote-off > once each test is done. Perhaps we can start with a simple spreadsheet with > the Tests specified by Raman added. > > + 1. Here is an example from Rave. Template for Quality Assurance [1] and > an example [2]. > > Bottom line, for atleast few days during the release process, we all > should become the QA Team. > > Currently, we are doing scripted testing like 5, 10 minute tutorials and > grid job submissions and lot of code still does not get touched. As an > example, provenance aware search became nonfunctional and until Sanjaya > pointed it out, we did not notice it. It will be useful, if randomly (or by > co-ordination) we all test an RC against various features and then post > them to DISCUSS thread. Otherwise, the releases just become pointing to a > tag. We need to move from releases being a formality to every release > robusting the code. We have so much active development and if we turn some > energy to testing and bug fixing, I think our users will be happy with the > outcome. > > Suresh > [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ReleaseManagement/QualityAssurance > [2] - > http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ReleaseManagement/ReleaseSchedule/VerificationResults-0.11 > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Chathuri Wimalasena < > kamalas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a general checklist added by Raman [1], which covers basic > functionalities. > > > > Thanks.. > > Chathuri > > > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRAVATA/Airavata+Release+Testing > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Suresh Marru <sma...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks Amila for weighing in. Comments inline: > > > > On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.am...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Suresh, > > > > > > I have some comments inline. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Suresh Marru <sma...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > This is a very good question. Lets discuss these options so we are > consistent across releases. > > > > > > If we look at the way we are doing releases, we are calling a feature > freeze and code freeze and cutting a release. Most of the time, our build > is broken. Jenkins statistics for Airavata is not looking good at all [1]. > > > > > > There is something wrong with the Jenkins configurations. I tried to > figure out sometime back I was unable to do so. Even though builds are > successful in our local machines they are failing intermittently in Jenkins. > > > > > > We are barely fixing the build a day before the release, putting out > an RC and testing on it and releasing it in a quick succession. > > > > > > This is not entirely true. For the past few months I only experienced > one or two build breaks (maybe less). I build couple of times per week. I > believe usually build is stable and with integration tests passing, we > always get a workable version. I know its not a good practice not to rely > on the build server. But commiters have personal discipline to keep the > build stable. Nevertheless we must fix Jenkins configuration issue. > > > > May be we should put focus on Jenkins configuration? Any volunteers? > > > > > > > > As we are seeing on user lists, we have users upgrading with every > release. I think we should increase the release quality. > > > > > > +1 for this. > > > > > > I would vote for atleast 3 RC’s per release. If we are not finding > issues in first RC, I would say, either the software has magically become > too too good or we are not doing through testing. I suspect the later. > > How about we keep a checklist of release tests? I know we already send a > mail on dev on what needs to be tested for each RC, but I need that is too > abstract. For core developers of Airavata I think there should be test > cases predefined (a test document if you may). Since we have several core > developers in the list we can atleast decide upon what must be tested and > make sure that each test case is covered by atleast one developer for a RC. > > > > > > I guess you mentioned this under assumption that build is not stable. > > > > Half of my assumption is on Jenkins, so if builds are ok and Jenkins is > thinking wrong, then we can alleviate it by fixing it. > > > > > I will propose the following, please counter it and lets agree on a > process: > > > > > > * Lets post a RC1 as is (which means it will have a snapshot). This > pack, we should all test as much as possible, so its more of a test > candidate then a release candidate. If it helps, we can use the name TC1. I > am not particular on the naming but trying to emphasize the need for having > atleast more RC's per release. > > > > > > I am not sure whether we really need a TC. The release manager should > be doing some verifications on the RC before putting it out. Therefore it > should be a RC. Anyhow i am fine having TC concept and trying it out. > > > > We probably should stick to RC, but I think the onus should not be on > the RM to test it. They should coordinate and mobilize every one to do the > testing including doing a testing bit more than others. But my point is, we > should test and the only way to do that is to put a series of RC’s and have > focused testing. > > A TC should be something internal IMO. But when we are going for a > release it should be alpha, beta and then RC releases. I think it need not > be mandatory for the RMs to do pre-evaluation of the builds other than > making sure all the unit tests and integration tests pass. Once an RC is > confirmed of release quality I think we can follow the actual release cycle > from the trunk itself with since its in a code freeze anyway. > > > > Suresh > > > > > > > > What we really need is set of verifiable test cases. > > > > > > Thank you > > > Regards > > > Amila > > > > > > > > > * If we do not expose significant issues in RC/TC 1 then we proceed > with RC2 which will follow the proper release process. But if we have a > reasonable issues bought out, we need a RC2/TC2 also without following the > release process. > > > > > > * The key thing I am proposing is, we keep doing RC/TC’s until we all > are sure the quality is good enough with documented known issues. When we > are sure, then we proceed to have RC with proper release process. > > > > > > So this will mean more testing and twice (or more) the times every one > has to test, but I think it is worth it. This might also get over the 6 > week release cycle, but I think we need to trade for some quality releases > as we march towards 1.0. > > > > > > Suresh > > > [1] - https://builds.apache.org/job/Apache%20Airavata/ > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2013, at 4:28 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <glah...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chathuri, > > > > > > > > I think having snapshot as the version in RC is wrong. Every RC has > to be like a release and if it pass we just call a vote/discussion thread > and do the release. If we do with snapshot and if things go right, then > have to change versions and test again. But we can do the release just by > changing snapshot without testing but that wrong AFAIT. > > > > > > > > I remember doing this mistake in earlier release with RC1 build. I > think we can stick to the release management instructions in airavata.org. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Lahiru > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chathuri Wimalasena < > kamalas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Airavata 0.11 RC1[1] is ready for testing. > > > > > > > > Here are some pointers for testing > > > > • Verify the fixed issue for this release [2] > > > > • Verify the basic workflow composition/execution/monitoring > scenarios from > > > > • Airavata 5 & 10 min tutorials [3],[4] > > > > • Verify airavata client samples > > > > • Verify the stability with derby & mysql backend databases > > > > • Verify that the XBaya JNLP distribution works > > > > • Verify deploying Airavata server in a tomcat distribution > > > > Please report any issues[5] if you encounter while testing. Thank > you for your time in validating the release. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Chathuri (On behalf of Airavata PMC) > > > > > > > > [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airavata/0.11/RC1/ > > > > [2] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-278?jql=project%20%3D%20AIRAVATA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.11%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC > > > > [3] > http://airavata.apache.org/documentation/tutorials/airavata-in-5-minutes.html > > > > [4] > http://airavata.apache.org/documentation/tutorials/airavata-in-10-minutes.html > > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > System Analyst Programmer > > > > PTI Lab > > > > Indiana University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
