Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-airavata-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-airavata-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95338100E4 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 32356 invoked by uid 500); 17 Dec 2013 08:42:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-airavata-dev-archive@airavata.apache.org Received: (qmail 32234 invoked by uid 500); 17 Dec 2013 08:42:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@airavata.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@airavata.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@airavata.apache.org Received: (qmail 32227 invoked by uid 99); 17 Dec 2013 08:42:27 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:42:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of samindaw@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.47] (HELO mail-wg0-f47.google.com) (74.125.82.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:42:22 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so5597391wgh.26 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:42:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=f8EldUqNf6r1kFKBDaua9Mz/YjfvChwRfZkBpD5cWY0=; b=OUuIMnZvcDNCgQ7O9N5OOzwvD6RWb1kNV89mdbuWw0/r99pPMFPwXjNrrJ8PtSdp3b FmUCuntPGluoSruob3i8yFJnr4m/WbsSsec6S3ferwzvXciPUoLEtAhQRskZrDwCfA/U 70+D76Fn2p2mjE8B+Yzp6buybpEp+2Vh0EUX+yFZb7HeFErJdrMv+SdFS4L8PRzClrrb KfqGgQu2VghjCcNKOrgHaHKOreRTW5HAd+47kN659uNjxeGZr9KaEbmhO77Ws28aO820 YJKoRvtNdc4/bjDf2GSOb++PgucRmX0sHxbZfXRsXxjT7uOCXUi/2QK98b44I2VQDEaU cQsQ== X-Received: by 10.194.175.66 with SMTP id by2mr11205462wjc.59.1387269721483; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:42:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.217.175.201 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:41:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7A535D89-C433-45D6-B023-3B09878C6703@apache.org> <412BC55A-471E-4937-947A-BB6C06D86F11@apache.org> <4EF20A69-6EDB-4D32-8892-E8727F5F4595@apache.org> From: Saminda Wijeratne Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:41:41 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Methodology To: dev@airavata.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d19f8f4eeee04edb6e631 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e013d19f8f4eeee04edb6e631 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=3D0AqYI3-ZrFz-EdFI0S3htaWJ1MDV4= RE1WM19Ga0lhbEE&usp=3Dsharing#gid=3D0 On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Amila Jayasekara wrote: > +1, please. > > - Thejaka Amila > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Suresh Marru wrote: > >> On Dec 16, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Saminda Wijeratne >> 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 w= ith >> the Tests specified by Raman added. >> >> + 1. Here is an example from Rave. Template for Quality Assurance [1] an= d >> 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 so= me >> energy to testing and bug fixing, I think our users will be happy with t= he >> outcome. >> >> Suresh >> [1] - http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ReleaseManagement/QualityAssurance >> [2] - >> http://wiki.apache.org/rave/ReleaseManagement/ReleaseSchedule/Verificati= onResults-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+Te= sting >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Saminda Wijeratne >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Suresh Marru >> wrote: >> > Thanks Amila for weighing in. Comments inline: >> > >> > On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Amila Jayasekara >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Suresh, >> > > >> > > I have some comments inline. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Suresh Marru >> 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 featur= e >> freeze and code freeze and cutting a release. Most of the time, our buil= d >> 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 Jenk= ins. >> > > >> > > 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 experience= d >> 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 rel= y >> 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=92s per release. If we are not finding >> issues in first RC, I would say, either the software has magically becom= e >> 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 te= st >> cases predefined (a test document if you may). Since we have several cor= e >> developers in the list we can atleast decide upon what must be tested an= d >> 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 i= s >> 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 hav= ing >> atleast more RC's per release. >> > > >> > > I am not sure whether we really need a TC. The release manager shoul= d >> be doing some verifications on the RC before putting it out. Therefore i= t >> 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 t= he >> 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=92s 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 n= ot >> 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 cy= cle >> 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 t= he >> release process. >> > > >> > > * The key thing I am proposing is, we keep doing RC/TC=92s until we = all >> are sure the quality is good enough with documented known issues. When w= e >> 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 th= e 6 >> week release cycle, but I think we need to trade for some quality releas= es >> 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 >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Chathuri, >> > > > >> > > > I think having snapshot as the version in RC is wrong. Every RC ha= s >> to be like a release and if it pass we just call a vote/discussion threa= d >> 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 b= y >> 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.or= g >> . >> > > > >> > > > 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 >> > > > =95 Verify the fixed issue for this release [2] >> > > > =95 Verify the basic workflow composition/execution/monitori= ng >> scenarios from >> > > > =95 Airavata 5 & 10 min tutorials [3],[4] >> > > > =95 Verify airavata client samples >> > > > =95 Verify the stability with derby & mysql backend database= s >> > > > =95 Verify that the XBaya JNLP distribution works >> > > > =95 Verify deploying Airavata server in a tomcat distributio= n >> > > > 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=3Dproject%20%3D%2= 0AIRAVATA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.11%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DES= C%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-minute= s.html >> > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > System Analyst Programmer >> > > > PTI Lab >> > > > Indiana University >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > --089e013d19f8f4eeee04edb6e631 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To see how it might go I created a simple spread= sheet [1] to record test results. "0" for untested, positve value= for passed tests and negative value for failed tests.

I realized i= t 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


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

<= div>- 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 Wi= jeratne <saminda= w@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 gr= id job submissions and lot of code still does not get touched. As an exampl= e, provenance aware search became nonfunctional and until Sanjaya pointed i= t out, we did not notice it. It will be useful, if randomly (or by co-ordin= ation) we all test an RC against various features and then post them to DIS= CUSS thread. Otherwise, the releases just become pointing to a tag. We need= to move from releases being a formality to every release robusting the cod= e. 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/Quali= tyAssurance
[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 fu= nctionalities.
>
> Thanks..
> Chathuri
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluen= ce/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> w= rote:
>
> > 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 ar= e consistent across releases.
> >
> > If we look at the way we are doing releases, we are calling a fea= ture freeze and code freeze and cutting a release. Most of the time, our bu= ild is broken. Jenkins =A0 statistics for Airavata is not looking good at a= ll [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 experie= nced 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 o= n the build server. But commiters have personal discipline to keep the buil= d 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 ever= y release. I think we should increase the release quality.
> >
> > +1 for this.
> >
> > I would vote for atleast 3 RC=92s per release. If we are not find= ing issues in first RC, I would say, either the software has magically beco= me 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 t= oo abstract. For core developers of Airavata I think there should be test c= ases predefined (a test document if you may). Since we have several core de= velopers in the list we can atleast decide upon what must be tested and mak= e 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 sta= ble.
>
> Half of my assumption is on Jenkins, so if builds are ok and Jenkins i= s 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). Th= is pack, we should all test as much as possible, so its more of a test cand= idate 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 at= least more RC's per release.
> >
> > I am not sure whether we really need a TC. The release manager sh= ould 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=92s and h= ave focused testing.
> A TC should be something internal IMO. But when we are going for a rel= ease 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 proce= ed 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=92s until = we all are sure the quality is good enough with documented known issues. Wh= en 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 ever= y 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 releas= es 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:<= br> > >
> > >
> > > 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 =A0and if things go right= , then have to change versions and test again. But we can do the release ju= st by changing snapshot without testing but that wrong AFAIT.
> > >
> > > I remember doing this mistake in earlier release with RC1 bu= ild. 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
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 Verify the fixed issue for this release [2]<= br> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 Verify the basic workflow composition/execut= ion/monitoring scenarios from
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 Airavata 5 & 10 min tutorials [3],[4] > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 Verify airavata client samples
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 Verify the stability with derby & mysql = backend databases
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 Verify that the XBaya JNLP distribution work= s
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =95 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/aira= vata/0.11/RC1/
> > > [2] https:= //issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-278?jql=3Dproject%20%3D%20AIRAVATA= %20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.11%22%20ORDER%20BY%20status%20DESC%2C%20pr= iority%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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>



--089e013d19f8f4eeee04edb6e631--