[cdwg] Lustre Development Community Tree Maintenance Q4 2011 report

[Peter Jones]

Hi Peter

Yes, I can certainly incorporate these elements into future quarterly 
reports.

Regards

Peter

On 12-01-25 4:22 AM, Peter Bojanic wrote:
> Thanks, pjones.
>
> I guess what I'm subtly suggesting is that quality metrics and release criteria definition should be part of the on-going reporting related to the Lustre Development Community Tree Maintenance contract with OpenSFS. The roadmap and landing metrics are of course very useful and quality metrics included in the will round out the picture.
>
> Cheers,
> Bojanic
>
> On 2012-01-25, at 08:16 , Peter Jones wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> I agree that having a way to monitor what tests are being run and the outcome over time is a very useful way of tracking quality over time. To that end Whamcloud has been working on dynamic reports that create a visual comparison of test results over time. The kinks are still being worked through, but you can see the latest reports at https://maloo.whamcloud.com/reports.
>>
>> The release criteria for 2.2 would be to achieve zero blockers. For anyone interested in tracking the number of blockers for 2.2, there is a public filter in JIRA which can accessed through the Manage Filters link on the bottom right of the JIRA dashboard and then selecting Popular from the options on the left. You can run it from there or if you highlight the star then the filter will be added to your dashboard so that you get a dynamic update whenever you use JIRA.
>>
>> Details relating to the features are probably out of scope for reporting in this contract, but I agree that details of the tests that relate to the features might be of interest. I'll aim to provide this information on my next biweekly update.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 12-01-23 4:01 PM, Peter Bojanic wrote:
>>> Hi Pam,
>>>
>>> Is there any kind of test or other quality report that shows:
>>> - defect density before and over the course of development (defects injected; latent defects discovered; defects removed)
>>> - tests executed; number of tests passed vs. failed per test case
>>> - what is the release criteria for 2.2, particularly with respect to quality attributes (e.g. zero blocker or critical defects)
>>> - manifest and description of new regression test cases added corresponding to new features
>>>
>>> This way OpenSFS can monitor not only the success landing of deliverables but also the overall health of the release branch.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Bojanic
>>>
>>> On 2012-01-23, at 19:17 , Hamilton, Pam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the final version of the first quarterly report from Whamcloud for the Lustre Development Community Tree Maintenance contract. Please let me know if you have any questions/comments.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Pam
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________
>>>> Pam Hamilton
>>>> Lawrence Livermore National Lab
>>>> P.O. Box 808, L-556
>>>> Livermore, CA  94551-9900
>>>> E-Mail:  pgh at llnl.gov
>>>> Phone:  925-423-1332          Fax:  925-423-8719
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <OpenSFS-Whamcloud Tree Report - Q4 2011 FINAL.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> cdwg mailing list
>>>> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>>>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdwg mailing list
>>> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>> -- 
>> Peter Jones
>> Whamcloud, Inc.
>> www.whamcloud.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdwg mailing list
>> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
>> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org

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