Sorry, replied to wrong ML...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] [openstack-dev] use of the word certified
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:37:38 -0400
From: Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com>
To: openstack...@lists.openstack.org
On 06/10/2014 09:53 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/10/2014 09:14 AM, Anita Kuno wrote:
On 06/10/2014 04:33 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 20:14 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Eoghan Glynn <egl...@redhat.com> wrote:
Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options:
1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the "certification"
to the project level.
2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what
we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of Vendor-specific
Drivers.
Hi Ramy,
Thanks for these constructive suggestions.
The second option is certainly a very direct and specific reflection of
what is actually involved in getting the Cinder project's imprimatur.
I do like "tested."
I'd like to understand what the foundation is planning for
"certification" as well, to know how big of an issue this really is.
Even if they aren't going to certify drivers, I have heard discussions
around training and possibly other areas so I would hate for us to
introduce confusion by having different uses of that term in similar
contexts. Mark, do you know who is working on that within the board or
foundation?
http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2014/05/17/may-11-openstack-foundation-board-meeting/
Boris Renski raised the possibility of the Foundation attaching the
trademark to a verified, certified or tested status for drivers. It
wasn't discussed at length because board members hadn't been briefed in
advance, but I think it's safe to say there was a knee-jerk negative
reaction from a number of members. This is in the context of the
DriverLog report:
http://stackalytics.com/report/driverlog
http://www.mirantis.com/blog/cloud-drivers-openstack-driverlog-part-1-solving-driver-problem/
http://www.mirantis.com/blog/openstack-will-open-source-vendor-certifications/
AIUI the "CI tested" phrase was chosen in DriverLog to avoid the
controversial area Boris describes in the last link above. I think that
makes sense. Claiming this CI testing replaces more traditional
certification programs is a sure way to bog potentially useful
collaboration down in vendor politics.
Actually FWIW the DriverLog is not posting accurate information, I came
upon two instances yesterday where I found the information
"questionable" at best. I know I questioned it. Kyle and I have agreed
to not rely on the DriverLog information as it currently stands as a way
of assessing the fitness of third party CI systems. I'll add some
footnotes for those who want more details. [%%], [++], [&&]
Avoiding dragging the project into those sort of politics is something
I'm really keen on, and why I think the word "certification" is best
avoided so we can focus on what we're actually trying to achieve.
Mark.
I agree with Mark, everytime we try to 'abstract' away from logs and put
an new interface on it, the focus moves to the interface and folks stop
paying attention to logs. We archive and have links to artifacts for a
reason and I think we need to encourage and support people to access
these artifacts and draw their own conclusions, which is in keeping with
our license.
Copy/pasting Mark here:
"Also AIUI "certification" implies some level of warranty or guarantee,
which goes against the pretty clear language "WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR
CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND" in our license :)" [**]
Honestly, the bigger issue I've got at this point is that driverlog is
horribly inaccurate. Based on DriverLog you'd see that we don't test KVM
or QEMU at all, only XenAPI.
Then shouldn't the focus be on both reporting bugs to DriverLog [1] and
fixing these inaccuracies? DriverLog doesn't use the term "certified"
anywhere, for the record.
It is an honest best effort to provide some insight into the testability
of various drivers in the OpenStack ecosystem in a more up-to-date way
than outdated wiki pages showing matrixes of support for something.
It's an alpha project that can and will have bugs. I can absolutely
guarantee you that the developers of the DriverLog project are more
interested in getting accurate information shown in the interface than
with any of the politics around the word "certified".
Best,
-jay
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/driverlog
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
