+1 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Anastasia Urlapova <aurlap...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only > > experimental feature(s). > > +1, absolutely agree, but we should determine count of allowed bugs for > experimental features against severity. > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Nikolay Markov <nmar...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Probably, even "experimental feature" should at least pretend to be >> working, anyway, or it shouldn't be publically announced. But I think >> it's important to describe limitation of this features (or mark some >> of them as "untested") and I think list of known issues with links to >> most important bugs is a good approach. And tags will just make things >> simpler. >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com> >> wrote: >> >> May be we can use tag per feature, for example "zabbix" >> > >> > Tags are ok, but I still think that we can mention at least some >> > significant bugs. For example, if some feature doesn't work in some >> > deployment mode (e.g. simple, with ceilometer, etc) we can at least >> > notify users so they even don't try. >> > >> > Another opinions? >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Mike Scherbakov >> > <mscherba...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> if we point somewhere about knowing issues in those experimental >> features >> >> there are might be dozens of bugs. >> >> May be we can use tag per feature, for example "zabbix", so it will be >> easy >> >> to search in LP all open bugs regarding Zabbix feature? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Igor Kalnitsky < >> ikalnit...@mirantis.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect >> only >> >>> > experimental feature(s). >> >>> >> >>> +1, I'm totally agree with you - it makes no sense to count >> >>> experimental bugs as HCF criteria. >> >>> >> >>> > Any objections / other ideas? >> >>> >> >>> I think it would be great for customers if we point somewhere about >> >>> knowing issues in those experimental features. IMHO, it should help >> >>> them to understand what's wrong in case of errors and may prevent bug >> >>> duplication in LP. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Mike Scherbakov >> >>> <mscherba...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> > Hi all, >> >>> > what about using "experimental" tag for experimental features? >> >>> > >> >>> > After we implemented feature groups [1], we can divide our features >> and >> >>> > for >> >>> > complex features, or those which don't get enough QA resources in >> the >> >>> > dev >> >>> > cycle, we can declare as experimental. It would mean that those are >> not >> >>> > production ready features. >> >>> > Giving them live still in experimental mode allows early adopters to >> >>> > give a >> >>> > try and bring a feedback to the development team. >> >>> > >> >>> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect >> only >> >>> > experimental feature(s). At the moment, we have Zabbix as >> experimental >> >>> > feature, and Patching of OpenStack [2] is under consideration: if >> today >> >>> > QA >> >>> > doesn't approve it to be as ready for production use, we have no >> other >> >>> > choice. All deadlines passed, and we need to get 5.1 finally out. >> >>> > >> >>> > Any objections / other ideas? >> >>> > >> >>> > [1] >> >>> > >> >>> > >> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-specs/blob/master/specs/5.1/feature-groups.rst >> >>> > [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/patch-openstack >> >>> > -- >> >>> > Mike Scherbakov >> >>> > #mihgen >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mike Scherbakov >> >> #mihgen >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Nick Markov >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Yours Faithfully, Vladimir Kuklin, Fuel Library Tech Lead, Mirantis, Inc. +7 (495) 640-49-04 +7 (926) 702-39-68 Skype kuklinvv 45bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str. Moscow, Russia, www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.ru/> www.mirantis.ru vkuk...@mirantis.com
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev