airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.am...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release Methodology
Date Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:12:59 GMT
+1, please.

- Thejaka Amila


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@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 <
> kamalasini@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 <samindaw@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org> wrote:
> > Thanks Amila for weighing in. Comments inline:
> >
> > On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.amila@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Suresh,
> > >
> > > I have some comments inline.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Suresh Marru <smarru@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 <glahiru@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 <
> kamalasini@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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message