> I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only > experimental feature(s).
+1, absolutely agree, but we should determine count of allowed bugs for experimental features against severity. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Nikolay Markov <[email protected]> wrote: > Probably, even "experimental feature" should at least pretend to be > working, anyway, or it shouldn't be publically announced. But I think > it's important to describe limitation of this features (or mark some > of them as "untested") and I think list of known issues with links to > most important bugs is a good approach. And tags will just make things > simpler. > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> May be we can use tag per feature, for example "zabbix" > > > > Tags are ok, but I still think that we can mention at least some > > significant bugs. For example, if some feature doesn't work in some > > deployment mode (e.g. simple, with ceilometer, etc) we can at least > > notify users so they even don't try. > > > > Another opinions? > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Mike Scherbakov > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> if we point somewhere about knowing issues in those experimental > features > >> there are might be dozens of bugs. > >> May be we can use tag per feature, for example "zabbix", so it will be > easy > >> to search in LP all open bugs regarding Zabbix feature? > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Igor Kalnitsky < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only > >>> > experimental feature(s). > >>> > >>> +1, I'm totally agree with you - it makes no sense to count > >>> experimental bugs as HCF criteria. > >>> > >>> > Any objections / other ideas? > >>> > >>> I think it would be great for customers if we point somewhere about > >>> knowing issues in those experimental features. IMHO, it should help > >>> them to understand what's wrong in case of errors and may prevent bug > >>> duplication in LP. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Mike Scherbakov > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Hi all, > >>> > what about using "experimental" tag for experimental features? > >>> > > >>> > After we implemented feature groups [1], we can divide our features > and > >>> > for > >>> > complex features, or those which don't get enough QA resources in the > >>> > dev > >>> > cycle, we can declare as experimental. It would mean that those are > not > >>> > production ready features. > >>> > Giving them live still in experimental mode allows early adopters to > >>> > give a > >>> > try and bring a feedback to the development team. > >>> > > >>> > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only > >>> > experimental feature(s). At the moment, we have Zabbix as > experimental > >>> > feature, and Patching of OpenStack [2] is under consideration: if > today > >>> > QA > >>> > doesn't approve it to be as ready for production use, we have no > other > >>> > choice. All deadlines passed, and we need to get 5.1 finally out. > >>> > > >>> > Any objections / other ideas? > >>> > > >>> > [1] > >>> > > >>> > > https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-specs/blob/master/specs/5.1/feature-groups.rst > >>> > [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/patch-openstack > >>> > -- > >>> > Mike Scherbakov > >>> > #mihgen > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list > >>> > [email protected] > >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >>> > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mike Scherbakov > >> #mihgen > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > -- > Best regards, > Nick Markov > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
