All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Kampe <mark.kampe@dreamhost.com>
To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: moving towards release criteria
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:01:22 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ED3DA82.7030506@dreamhost.com> (raw)

At present we are running automated nightlies to catch
problems that slip past developers or only show up on
long runs, and filing bugs when they fail ... but the
decision of whether or not we are ready to push out a
new release is not yet criterion-based.  We have to
start moving towards official release criteria.

I suggest that our initial release criteria should fall
into four categories:

   (1) functional validation

	100% passage of designated validation suites,
	with a formal process for managing the functional
	assertions to be tested (or designating specific
	assertions to be compliance-optional)
	
   (2) regression tests

	100% passage of designated regression suites,
	with a formal process for designating which
	bugs do and do not require the creation of
	new regression test cases.

   (3) performance

	individual and aggregate throughput measurements,
	and key-event timings will be made with controlled
	loads on specified hardware configuration, and
	compared against performance targets, and a formal
	process for defining the target metrics and requirements.

   (4) reliability and robustness

	a specified number of hours of (client perceived) error
	free operation under continuous load (with specified
	levels and characteristics), in the face of specified
	error injections ... and a formal process for defining
	the times, load characteristics, error injections, and
	acceptable performance.

Does this seem like the right general form for our release criteria? 
What changes would you suggest?

Once we agree on the general form of our release criteria, the next
steps are:

   (a) put some stakes in the ground for the initial requirements
       (knowing that they will evolve in scope, specificity, and
       rigour)

   (b) propose some processes for the review, approval, and
       evolution of those standards, and the communication of
       the (current) requirements and results to the community.

   (c) set a date for the first release to be subject to these
       criteria

comments?

             reply	other threads:[~2011-11-28 19:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-28 19:01 Mark Kampe [this message]
2011-11-29  0:38 ` moving towards release criteria Tommi Virtanen
2011-11-29 19:14   ` Wido den Hollander

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4ED3DA82.7030506@dreamhost.com \
    --to=mark.kampe@dreamhost.com \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.