Draft separation of Server Role requirements from criteria
Adam Williamson
adamwill at fedoraproject.org
Sat Jan 24 00:49:39 UTC 2015
Hi, folks!
For F21 we stuffed the functional requirements for the sole Role
(domain controller) into the release criteria. But we all agreed this
was kinda sucky and wouldn't scale, and they should be split out
somehow.
Here's my proposal for 'somehow'.
At first I was thinking of a sort of general 'role definition' wiki
page, but when I sat down to draft one I couldn't really think of much
that would go on one *besides* the functional requirements, so I
figured I'd keep it simple and just draft a template for requirements.
So, my draft consists of a template:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_role_requirements_template
an example implementation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_domain_controller_role_requirements
a category page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Server_role_requirements
which also acts as a short overall explanation of the 'requirements'
system, and a proposal for the release criteria. We'd drop all the
domain controller stuff, and add the following criteria:
Alpha
-----
* The [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|core requirements]] for all
Featured Server Roles must be met, but it is acceptable if moderate
workarounds are necessary to achieve this
footnote #1: Featured roles - [[FIXME|this page]] contains the list of
Featured server roles
footnote #2: Moderate workarounds? - For instance, if a service needs
to be manually enabled or a configuration file minimally tweaked, this
is acceptable.
Beta
----
* The [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|core requirements]] for all
Featured Server Roles must be met, without any workarounds being
necessary
* The [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|other requirements]] for
all Featured Server Roles must be met, but it is acceptable if
moderate workarounds are necessary to achieve this
footnote #1: Workarounds - This means the role must meet its core
requirements, i.e. be broadly usable for its intended purpose, after
correct deployment and configuration via the role mechanism, but
moderate workarounds as described in the [[BLAH|Alpha criterion]] are
acceptable if necessary to fulfill the full set of requirements.
Final
-----
* All [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|requirements]] for all
Featured Server Roles must be met, without any workarounds being
necessary
The FIXME indicates we also need some kind of place where we define
which server roles are 'Featured', which AFAIK we don't at present.
In case anyone's wondering why I didn't simply have Alpha, Beta and
Final requirements for each role, I considered that, but it seemed a
bit too tightly couple to a particular release process, when we've
discussed changing the Server release process in future. I quite like
the way this proposal puts the things together; all the concepts make
sense separately, for me. It makes sense just thinking about a Server
product, whatever its release process, that Roles would have the two
levels of requirements specified in the proposal ("Core" and regular).
And then as a separate matter it makes sense (to me) to enforce them
at the Alpha, Beta and Final points of our *current* release process
in the way proposed above.
What do folks think of this general proposal? Thanks! We can also
discuss it at the meeting next week if folks want to.
Note, the actual requirements listed on the domain controller page are
copy/pasted straight out of the F21 criteria; we can certainly tweak
and extend those, but please if you want to discuss that make it a
separate thread, the intent here is for us to discuss this *framework*
for role requirements and hooking them into the release criteria.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
More information about the server
mailing list