On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM, John Griffith <john.griff...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > >> On 08/07/2014 07:58 AM, Angus Salkeld wrote: >> > On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 15:48 -0600, John Griffith wrote: >> >> I have to agree with Duncan here. I also don't know if I fully >> >> understand the limit in options. Stress test seems like it >> >> could/should be different (again overlap isn't a horrible thing) and I >> >> don't see it as siphoning off resources so not sure of the issue. >> >> We've become quite wrapped up in projects, programs and the like >> >> lately and it seems to hinder forward progress more than anything >> >> else. >> > h >> >> >> >> I'm also not convinced that Tempest is where all things belong, in >> >> fact I've been thinking more and more that a good bit of what Tempest >> >> does today should fall more on the responsibility of the projects >> >> themselves. For example functional testing of features etc, ideally >> >> I'd love to have more of that fall on the projects and their >> >> respective teams. That might even be something as simple to start as >> >> saying "if you contribute a new feature, you have to also provide a >> >> link to a contribution to the Tempest test-suite that checks it". >> >> Sort of like we do for unit tests, cross-project tracking is >> >> difficult of course, but it's a start. The other idea is maybe >> >> functional test harnesses live in their respective projects. >> >> >> > >> > Couldn't we reduce the scope of tempest (and rally) : make tempest the >> > API verification and rally the secenario/performance tester? Make each >> > tool do less, but better. My point being to split the projects by >> > functionality so there is less need to share code and stomp on each >> > other's toes. >> >> Who is going to propose the split? Who is going to manage the >> coordination of the split? What happens when their is disagreement about >> the location of something like booting and listing a server - >> >> https://github.com/stackforge/rally/blob/master/rally/benchmark/scenarios/nova/servers.py#L44-L64 >> >> Because today we've got fundamental disagreements between the teams on >> scope, long standing (as seen in these threads), so this won't >> organically solve itself. >> >> -Sean >> >> -- >> Sean Dague >> http://dague.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > last paragraph regarding the "split" wasn't mine, but... I think it's > good for people to express ideas on the ML like this. It may not be > feasible, but I think the more people you have thinking about how to move > forward and expressing their ideas (even if they don't work) is a good and > healthy thing. > > As far as proposing a split, there's obviously a ton of detail that needs > to be considered here and honestly it may just be a horrible idea right > from the start. That being said, to answer some of your questions, quite > honestly IMO these are some of the things that I think it would be good for > the TC to take an active role in. Seems reasonable to have bodies like the > TC work on governing and laying out technical process and direction. > > Anyway, I think the bottom line is that better collaboration is something > we need to work on. That in and of itself would've have likely thwarted > this this thread to begin with (and I think that was one of the key points > it tried to make). > > As far as the question at hand of Rally... I would surely hope that > there's a way to for QA and Rally teams to actually collaborate and work > together on this. I also understand completely that lack of collaboration > is probably what got us to this point in the first place. It just seems to > me that there's a middle ground somewhere but it's going to require some > give and take from both sides. > > By the way, personally I feel that the movement over the last year that > everybody needs to have their own program or project is a big problem. The > other thing that nobody wants to consider is why not just put some code on > github independent of OpenStack? Contribute things to the projects and > build cool things for OpenStack outside of OpenStack. Make sense? > > Questions about functional test responsibilities for projects etc should > probably be a future discussion if there's interest and if it makes any > sense at all (ie summit topic?). > > Just a note, I don't mean for the above to point fingers or even remotely suggest that I think I have all the answers etc. I just would like to spur some serious thought on how we scale and grow going forward and that includes Tempest and it role. Currently I have zero complaints (really... zero) about Tempest, the QA or Infra teams. I do see more snags like the one we currently have in our future though, and I think we need to come up with some way of adapting and of course collaborating better and more easily. I also do have concerns WRT scale in the future. John
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
