Draft separation of Server Role requirements from criteria

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Thu Jan 29 15:47:43 UTC 2015




On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 16:49 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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.



Sorry it took so long to go through this. It seems like a sensible
approach to me. I think we'll also want to make this part of the Server
SIG process that we write these criteria FIRST and then go ahead and
develop the roles. (Which I will note I have not yet done for the
Database Server Role; I'll start a separate thread on that once we
finish discussing this).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/attachments/20150129/3ea83ae5/attachment.sig>


More information about the server mailing list