LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for XROOTD-L Archives


XROOTD-L Archives

XROOTD-L Archives


XROOTD-L@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

XROOTD-L Home

XROOTD-L Home

XROOTD-L  February 2005

XROOTD-L February 2005

Subject:

Re: xrootd at gridka

From:

Peter Elmer <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

18 Feb 2005 14:18:07 +0100Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:18:07 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

  Hi Andy,

On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 05:14:32AM -0800, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
> Oh yeah, one more thing. It seems that the source directories for versions
> we are running in production have been deleted. That makes it very
> difficult to use dbx. Any chance of restoring those or just throw in the
> towel and press on in getting to new releases.

  These can obviously be restored. You should be able to check out the
source code for that version anywhere and point dbx at it.

  But I agree that we should so some basic system tests and push the latest
version out onto the production system at SLAC and elsewhere when they like.

                                   Pete
  

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Peter Elmer wrote:
> 
> >   Hi Heinz and Andy,
> >
> >   Nothing like release/version management to pull everyone into the discussion!
> >
> >   Heinz, I'm not sure what this has to do with tagging. Note that the server
> > itself contains the version string, so I don't think "retagging" is an option.
> > Doing another build with a new tag to indicate that it had extra system testing
> > seems like overkill.
> >
> >   If it helps I can try to find a small gif of a skull and crossbones (or
> > similar) and we can label the versions as:
> >
> >    untested development version, developers only! (skull-and-crossbones)
> >    tested development version, developers only!
> >    production version
> >
> > or something equally scary looking. People who blur the lines between these
> > things probably just blur everything anyway.
> >
> >   Heinz, the reason we are so insistent on even test versions having a
> > specific version number is that the test versions seem to propagate
> > onto production systems. This used to happen all the time with the, uh,
> > simplified versioning scheme used for the AMS ({pro,old,new} IIRC) and
> > we had tremendous problems operationally trying to figure what was going
> > on after the fact.
> >
> >   Note that >real content< to this discussion will be discussing how to
> > do a basic system functionality test that is well automated and (perhaps)
> > site-independent.
> >
> >                                    Pete
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:03:55PM +0100, Heinz Stockinger wrote:
> > > I agree with Andy on that. One can even tag such to-be-tested releases
> > > differently so that only developers take them. Once they've been through
> > > the testing phase, they can be retagged or fixed.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Heinz
> > >
> > > Andrew Hanushevsky schrieb:
> > >
> > > >Hi Pete,
> > > >
> > > >What you say is good but the problem is that the rest of the world blurs
> > > >the line between development releases and production releases. My druthers
> > > >is that development releases never get to the web page. Only tested
> > > >releases should make it to the web page. To simplify things, at most two
> > > >or three (though that's probably too much) production releases should be
> > > >available via the web.
> > > >
> > > >Andy
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Peter Elmer wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Andy,
> > > >>
> > > >>On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:32:15AM -0800, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>All of this points out to a packaging problem we have. The only way we
> > > >>>really test releases is to create what we call a development release.
> > > >>>That,
> > > >>>unfortunately, makes it available to everyone else -- even before we can
> > > >>>certify it as being materially correct. I do know we've had some
> > > >>>development releases that should have never seen the light of day, but
> > > >>>unfortuantely the process lets them out. We are trying to get a new
> > > >>>process in to place that will *never* cut a release unless we know that
> > > >>>it
> > > >>>will actually work on a reasonablly sized system.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Releasing something as a "development" release for testing is independent
> > > >>from demonstrating that there are no bugs which prevent it from working
> > > >>on some canonical testbed system. (And this has nothing to do with
> > > >>packaging, either.)
> > > >>
> > > >> The thing we can add here is obtain and use the requested small testbed
> > > >> at
> > > >>SLAC plus define some set of standard functionality tests which are done
> > > >>on the development releases. The fact that we do or don't do such tests
> > > >>shouldn't however prevent the release of clearly labeled "development"
> > > >>versions to get feedback in the open-source sense. This will in any case
> > > >>be necessary as the testbed system by definition cannot test all of the
> > > >>configurations people might use out in the world.
> > > >>
> > > >> To summarize, what I would like to see happen is:
> > > >>
> > > >>  1) we develop a set of basic (and relatively automated) system
> > > >>     functionality tests
> > > >>  2) development releases are made as they are now
> > > >>  3) when each development release comes out, we use the system
> > > >>     functionality tests on the testbed at SLAC (and perhaps post the
> > > >>     results as a followup to the release announcement)
> > > >>
> > > >> This implies that #3 is easy to do, of course. In the open source style,
> > > >>people can wait for #3 to happen or not before trying to use it.
> > > >>
> > > >> How does that sound?
> > > >>
> > > >>                                  Pete
> > > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Peter Elmer     E-mail: [log in to unmask]      Phone: +41 (22) 767-4644
> > Address: CERN Division PPE, Bat. 32 2C-14, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Elmer     E-mail: [log in to unmask]      Phone: +41 (22) 767-4644
Address: CERN Division PPE, Bat. 32 2C-14, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use