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 Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:41:41 GMT
To see how it might go I created a simple spreadsheet [1] to record test
results. "0" for untested, positve value for passed tests and negative
value for failed tests.

I realized it would be overwhelming for a single developer to carryout all
the tests so I think its easier to just go on with the usual tests we do
and mark them in the spreadsheet what we covered and later RM (or someone)
can figureout a way to carryout tests which was not covered by anyone.

Let me know if anyone needs edit privileges to the spreadsheet.

Saminda

1.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqYI3-ZrFz-EdFI0S3htaWJ1MDV4RE1WM19Ga0lhbEE&usp=sharing#gid=0


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Amila Jayasekara
<thejaka.amila@gmail.com>wrote:

> +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