Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
QA-agree. -- nurla On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Mike Scherbakov wrote: > > Mike, i've just want to say, if feature isn't ready for production use > and we have no other choice, we should provide detailed limitations and > examples of proper use. > Fully agree, such features should become experimental. We should have this > information in release notes. > > Basically, Patching of OpenStack becomes as such, unfortunately. We still > have bugs, and there is no guarantee that we won't find more. > > So, let's add "experimental" tag to issues around Zabbix & Patching of > OpenStack. > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Anastasia Urlapova < > aurlap...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Mike, i've just want to say, if feature isn't ready for production use >> and we have no other choice, we should provide detailed limitations and >> examples of proper use. >> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Tomasz Napierala < >> tnapier...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Sep 2014, at 09:19, Mike Scherbakov >>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Tomasz 'Zen' Napierala >>> Sr. OpenStack Engineer >>> tnapier...@mirantis.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
> Mike, i've just want to say, if feature isn't ready for production use and we have no other choice, we should provide detailed limitations and examples of proper use. Fully agree, such features should become experimental. We should have this information in release notes. Basically, Patching of OpenStack becomes as such, unfortunately. We still have bugs, and there is no guarantee that we won't find more. So, let's add "experimental" tag to issues around Zabbix & Patching of OpenStack. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Anastasia Urlapova wrote: > Mike, i've just want to say, if feature isn't ready for production use and > we have no other choice, we should provide detailed limitations and > examples of proper use. > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Tomasz Napierala > wrote: > >> >> On 11 Sep 2014, at 09:19, Mike Scherbakov >> 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 >> >> -- >> Tomasz 'Zen' Napierala >> Sr. OpenStack Engineer >> tnapier...@mirantis.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
Mike, i've just want to say, if feature isn't ready for production use and we have no other choice, we should provide detailed limitations and examples of proper use. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote: > > On 11 Sep 2014, at 09:19, Mike Scherbakov > 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 > > -- > Tomasz 'Zen' Napierala > Sr. OpenStack Engineer > tnapier...@mirantis.com > > > > > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
On 11 Sep 2014, at 09:19, Mike Scherbakov 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 -- Tomasz 'Zen' Napierala Sr. OpenStack Engineer tnapier...@mirantis.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
> +1, absolutely agree, but we should determine count of allowed bugs for experimental features against severity. Anastasia, can you please give an example? I think we should not count them at all. Experimental features, if they are isolated, they can be in any stated. May be just very beginning of the development cycle. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote: > +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 >> 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 >>> 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 >>> > 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 >>> >>> 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 >
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
+1 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Anastasia Urlapova 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 > 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 >> 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 >> > 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 >> >>> 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-
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
> 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 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 > 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 > > 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 > >>> 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
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 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 > 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 >> 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 >>> 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
> 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 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 > 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 >> 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
> 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 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 > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
> 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 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
[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Experimental features and how they affect HCF
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
