On 08/06/2014 06:30 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > At the TC meeting yesterday we discussed Rally program request and > incubation request. We quickly dismissed the incubation request, as > Rally appears to be able to live happily on top of OpenStack and would > benefit from having a release cycle decoupled from the OpenStack > "integrated release". > > That leaves the question of the program. OpenStack programs are created > by the Technical Committee, to bless existing efforts and teams that are > considered *essential* to the production of the "OpenStack" integrated > release and the completion of the OpenStack project mission. There are 3 > ways to look at Rally and official programs at this point: > > 1. Rally as an essential QA tool > Performance testing (and especially performance regression testing) is > an essential QA function, and a feature that Rally provides. If the QA > team is happy to use Rally to fill that function, then Rally can > obviously be adopted by the (already-existing) QA program. That said, > that would put Rally under the authority of the QA PTL, and that raises > a few questions due to the current architecture of Rally, which is more > product-oriented. There needs to be further discussion between the QA > core team and the Rally team to see how that could work and if that > option would be acceptable for both sides. > > 2. Rally as an essential operator tool > Regular benchmarking of OpenStack deployments is a best practice for > cloud operators, and a feature that Rally provides. With a bit of a > stretch, we could consider that benchmarking is essential to the > completion of the OpenStack project mission. That program could one day > evolve to include more such "operations best practices" tools. In > addition to the slight stretch already mentioned, one concern here is > that we still want to have performance testing in QA (which is clearly > essential to the production of "OpenStack"). Letting Rally primarily be > an operational tool might make that outcome more difficult. > > 3. Let Rally be a product on top of OpenStack > The last option is to not have Rally in any program, and not consider it > *essential* to the production of the "OpenStack" integrated release or > the completion of the OpenStack project mission. Rally can happily exist > as an operator tool on top of OpenStack. It is built as a monolithic > product: that approach works very well for external complementary > solutions... Also be more integrated in OpenStack or part of the > OpenStack programs might come at a cost (slicing some functionality out > of rally to make it more a framework and less a product) that might not > be what its authors want. > > Let's explore each option to see which ones are viable, and the pros and > cons of each.
My feeling right now is that Rally is trying to accomplish too much at the start (both #1 and #2). I would rather see the project focus on doing one of them as best as it can before increasing scope. It's my opinion that #1 is the most important thing that Rally can be doing to help ensure the success of OpenStack, so I'd like to explore the "Rally as a QA tool" in more detail to start with. >From the TC meeting, it seems that the QA group (via sdague, at least) has provided some feedback to Rally over the last several months. I would really like to see an analysis and write-up from the QA group on the current state of Rally and how it may (or may not) be able to serve the performance QA needs. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev