[cdwg] Fwd: Re: [wc-discuss] Lustre 2.3 release

[Christopher J. Morrone]

Whoops, I only replied to one list by accident, so here it is again. 
Sorry for the double post for those that did see it.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [cdwg] [wc-discuss] Lustre 2.3 release
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:48:26 -0800
From: Peter Jones <pjones at whamcloud.com>
To: wc-discuss at whamcloud.com <wc-discuss at whamcloud.com>

Chris

I certainly endorse your view that JIRA should be the primary source of
information relating to Lustre development. Having a dynamic list in
JIRA is certainly more convenient than editing tables wiki markup :-) I
have created a filter for features -
http://jira.whamcloud.com/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?mode=hide&requestId=10194 

- which can be accessed directly through this link or else through
Manage filters - Popular. I still think that the wiki table is useful
though because (at least at the moment) it contains a superset of the
information in JIRA.

Regards

Peter

On 12-02-15 6:07 PM, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
> I think I like the idea of keeping the list on the wiki fairly generic
> for the reason that Peter gives.
>
> Perhaps we should use jira more for this kind of release planning.
> jira already has a "New Feature" issue type.  Like Peter suggested,
> there should be jira tickets for each of these items with design
> documents attached, and where we can have conversations about the
> features and give status updates.
>
> We can also mark which OpenSFS Lustre release the feature is planned
> to have, but among us developer folks it would be accepted that the
> target is by no means a guarantee of delivery.  A feature goes in when
> it is reviewed and accepted.  If it misses its planned target version,
> the version target can easily be changed in jira.
>
> By using jira, it is easy for all of the developer folks to get lists
> of features being worked on, and planned completion dates.
>
> We might even formalize the freeze dates in jira by having additional
> version targets like "2.2.0-freeze".  Which allows us to have separate
> bugs and such that are allowed in after the freeze to target  "2.2.0".
> Things that miss "2.2.0-freeze" get moved to "2.3.0-freeze".  Or
> something along those lines...
>
> Then maybe the wiki that will summarize things for users and managers
> will only get a target version listed when the feature has
> demonstrated through jira ticket traffic and gerrit patch submissions
> that it has sufficient development momentum that it can be reasonably
> expected to meet its target date.
>
> In other words, we use jira as the detailed release planning tool,
> with the understanding that some features can, and will, miss their
> target dates.  Stuff happens.  The wiki will be a summary of features
> in jira that are showing good progress and that we are confident will
> finish on schedule.
>
> That way we can manage expectations for the broader Lustre user base
> while still having the detailed discussions and planning amongst the
> various development teams.
>
> Chris
>
> On 02/15/2012 01:27 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Kevin
>>
>> I have added this column to the table.
>>
>> As I explained on the call, my concern with having such a column was
>> that it might cause confusion in the community if the targeted release
>> supplied does not prove to be realistic.
>>
>> In the past we ran into issues where people had relied on timelines in
>> aggressive roadmaps and planned around them, and then were left in
>> trouble when the features were not delivered according to the schedule.
>> That is why we have consciously published conservative roadmaps with the
>> intention of over-delivering.
>>
>> However, I can see this option being of interest to the community so I
>> am ok with giving this a try.
>>
>> Hopefully having all the design documents, test plan being in the open
>> in JIRA and the code uploaded into gerrit will enable interested parties
>> to see for themselves how things are progressing and perhaps it will
>> prove useful to spark a dialogue if there appears to be a divergence in
>> expectations.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 12-02-15 12:53 PM, Kevin Canady wrote:
>>> Peter
>>> This is great, many thanks, it's a good demonstration how much is being
>>> done to move Lustre forward.  If it would not further complicate, it
>>> would
>>> be helpful to have some reference to the targeted release of the
>>> features.Can we add a column to the list?  The obvious "right to
>>> change"
>>> would be in place.  The reference is only to help set expectations
>>> within
>>> the community.
>>>
>>> Sound reasonable?
>

-- 
Peter Jones
Whamcloud, Inc.
www.whamcloud.com

.