----- Original Message ----- > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin < mar...@redhat.com > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote: > > The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a > > group of someones to attest to something. The thing attested to is only > > as credible as the someone or the group of someones doing the attesting. > > We have no process, nor do I feel we want to have a process for > > evaluating the reliability of the somones or groups of someones doing > > the attesting. > > > > I think that having testing in place in line with other programs testing > > of patches (third party ci) in cinder should be sufficient to address > > the underlying concern, namely reliability of opensource hooks to > > proprietary code and/or hardware. I would like the use of the word > > "certificate" and all its roots to no longer be used in OpenStack > > programs with regard to testing. This won't happen until we get some > > discussion and agreement on this, which I would like to have. > > Thanks for bringing this up Anita. I agree that "certified driver" or > similar would suggest something other than I think we mean. > Can you expand on the above comment? In other words a bit more about what > "you" mean. I think from the perspective of a number of people that > participate in Cinder the intent is in fact to say. Maybe it would help > clear some things up for folks that don't see why this has become a > debatable issue. > > By running CI tests successfully that it is in fact a way of certifying that > our device and driver is in fact 'certified' to function appropriately and > provide the same level of API and behavioral compatability as the default > components as demonstrated by running CI tests on each submitted patch. > > Personally I believe part of the contesting of the phrases and terms is > partly due to the fact that a number of organizations have their own > "certification" programs and tests. I think that's great, and they in fact > provide some form of "certification" that a device works in their > environment and to their expectations. > > Doing this from a general OpenStack integration perspective doesn't seem all > that different to me. For the record, my initial response to this was that I > didn't have too much preference on what it was called (verification, > certification etc etc), however there seems to be a large number of people > (not product vendors for what it's worth) that feel differently.
Since "certification" seems to be quite an overloaded term already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as "quality assured" better capture the Cinder project's use of the word? It does exactly what it says on the tin ... i.e. captures the fact that a vendor has run an agreed battery of tests against their driver and the harness has reported green-ness with a meaning that is well understood upstream (as the Tempest test cases are in the public domain). Cheers, Eoghan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev