airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release Methodology
Date Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:51:18 GMT
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.


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