> I hope my extremely long winded rant here :) has explained adequately what > I feel GlusterFS needs to have in a regression testing system. > > Geoff. Geoff, and others, we hear you. Loud and clear. We acknowledge that the project could have fared better if the QA processes were already in place. Regarding the wiki page, which apparently has caused confusion about misrepresenting the presence of QA processes, I would like to clarify a few points. Even though the reasons involve some details about the company (Z Research Inc.) I would still disclose it just to clarify to the community that there were no evil intentions to fool anyone. First of all, in Sept 08, we did indeed want to kick in everything what the document speaks about. We did make our QA recruitment, and that person did start off with this very initiative. And as very first line the page speaks, "processes to be followed at", they were in the planning phase. That person (also the author of the first version of the page) had to quit soon after that for personal reasons. And the page was left stale -- yes, we acknowledge this was a mistake. Since then we have had some restructuring within (and still recruiting) and now, we do have a more dedicated QA team. And in the last month, as Shehjar has mentioned earlier in this thread, a unit test and regression test framework has indeed been under development, and we intend to have the framework and test cases published in a couple of months for public review. I was hoping we would not reach a stage to discuss things at such degree of detail to clarify the situation. But it is more important to make clear the actual reasons and events to maintain a good relationship with the community. The summary of what I intend to convey is that, what has happened (as described above), is NOT a justification from the devs, but only to convey that nothing was done on purpose as an eyewash, and did not have any malicious intent of fooling the community whatsoever -- as alleged. We acknowledge that the documentation is out of sync with the codebase, including the QA page, but that is only due to shortage of resources (than any kind of intentions.) The team here is spread thin and everybody plays multiple roles (there is the whole commercial support happening under the hood which drains out a lot of our time). We, more than anyone acknowledge that the project would be nowhere close to where it is, if not for the wonderful support, inputs, debugging and help from you guys. I would like to say that works for bringing about a regression suite is actually under progress. We ourselves would have wanted it to be out earlier than it is scheduled, but we are limited by the situation we are in. There are reasons for the delay (our current QA lead is to return from a long leave before the development on the framework continues full scale.) And the fact that GlusterFS being this complex system does not help in terms for getting help from non full-time contributors, or having new recruits be productive from an early stage. There is definitely a concentration within the team towards stability. For 2.1 we are bringing about a comprehensive internal resource accounting to detect and corner leaks and features to dump internal structures of the process for debugging -- all of this apart from the testing suite under development. Moving forward we promise to keep the release-X.X branches 'stable' and keep the master only "as stable as possible". So, people who not want to be on the bleeding edge, please switch to the release-2.0 branch for now. Once again, thank you all for being patient and I hope to wind up this thread with no sour feelings around! :) Avati
