Well testing day is done. As someone that is fairly new to the day to day of the project it looked pretty successful to me.

[Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:50:25AM +0300, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 08:04 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote:
> >I saw in IRC several people who didn't have redhat addresses testing the
> >projects. From what I have read this was an improvement over the 3.0
> >testing day.
> Thanks for taking the time to both test and reflect on it.
> your feedback is most welcome.
>
> some notes below.

+1

> >
> >1) Need to set a process for adding people onto the team. Someone else
> >besides me has offered to help with the infra but there doesn't seem to
> >be a process to add people to the group. It seems to be really to much
> >work for the few people I see running things part time and it shows.
>
> Karsten - can you please weigh in on getting the infra group bigger.
> not every infra member need to own/help with all hosts, since each
> has its own expertise, but more people could help maintaining them.
> maybe a weekly infra call to orchestrate efforts around this?

+1. I would be interested here.

> >2) Linnode and EC2 are great to get things running quickly but they can
> >also be pretty costly especially EC2. We need to start looking into ways
> >to save money at the same time giving the project more flexibility in
> >testing and building. There are several options for this but I always
> >believe in the old saying that someone should always "eat your own dog
> >food". So an oVirt or a RHEV cluster should really be on the table. If
> >there isn't already a working group looking into this maybe there should
> >be. I will be happy to be a member of this group if the team decides
> >this is a good idea.
>
> we have two main hosts on EC2 - gerrit and jenkins.
> the jenkins slaves can be contributed by anyone to the effort,
> hopefully with different distros (and maintained by them to keep the
> jobs running correctly on them).
> I can update from red hat side we are looking at contributing more
> hosts/guests to this not on EC2, for both cost and more importantly,
> performance reasons.
> the guests would be based on RHEV probably.
> again, anyone can contribute computing resources to the jenkins effort.

Since it's been approved I can tell that I'm working on a F17 guest on
my employers RHEV cluster. Once it's really available I'll send a proper
announcement.

> >4) We need to get at least el6 packages produced also I suggest we start
> >supporting all supported Fedora builds (Right now that would be F16 and
> >F17). A Debian based system would also be great. Having builds being ran
> >on more then one os will help remove some of the only works on fedora XX
> >issues that I am seeing in the code and commits. There are also bugs
> >that hide behind packages that show themselves rarely but become very
> >shallow under other OS's. I have seen that in other projects were code
> >that seems to work great under one OS will start to bomb under others
> >and so bugs that were masked get found and it forces the packaging to
> >get more generic.
>
> i agree. both .el6 and debian are things i'd like to see and plan to
> allocate resources to. this will go faster if more people pick some
> of these up.

As a Gentoo (desktop), Debian (personal servers) and CentOS (employers
servers) user I like the idea of supporting different distros. However,
there is some work to be done.

Looking at the engine (which I think is easiest because of less
interaction with the system) we do notice that JBoss isn't packaged. I'm
sure there are other dependencies as well.

When we look at VDSM there's work to be done in the software itself.
Think of how network interfaces are managed, installed packages which
are reported to engine. Also a much wider range of versions should be
supported because of different stable versions. Maybe that integrating
nova for network management could help here because lots of openstack
work is done on Debian and derivates.

> >5) We really need a review of the current structure of the websites and
> >tweak it some as some resources are really hard to find. Simple things
> >like adding a top level menu for the wiki most projects have something
> >like a documentation tab that points to a predefined wiki page with
> >instructions and links to other parts of the wiki covering important
> >topics.. Adding a simple URL like wiki.ovirt.org that redirects to
> >www.ovirt.org/wiki . There have been other idea's tossed out in the list
> >many of them are good ideas and simple to do but unless someone really
> >pushes them they tend to go no where. Maybe an official suggesting list
> >Editable by all and a todo list (editable by just infra team member) to
> >help capture those idea's
>
> agree.
> I believe Dave Neary started looking at this.
> Dave?

Maybe move to a pure wiki website? I think mediawiki has some control
options to protect some pages if we need it.

> >Well I fell like I am writing a book here and even with that I am sure
> >there are things I have missed.
> >
> >I want to make it clear I am not saying anything bad about the team and
> >what has been done already I am just point out things that I fell this
> >team should be working on to make the infrastructure behind this great
> >project help the project not hinder it.
>
> again - your feedback is most welcome,

It's the only way you can improve.