Mailing List Archive

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 17:24 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > This is how it works now. You're required to run the code.
> >
> > Thing is, this is about legal contracts. So enforcement is hazy.
> > Essentially, if hp signs a trademark usage thing that says we have to
> > run it, our own lawyers won't let us do different. I think the first
> > step is to say "OpenStack requires you run the code" ... Then as
> > violations are brought to our attention, we look in to it.
>
> You mean this?
>
> https://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-cloud/
>
> We could just add "must pass API compatibility tests" to those technical
> requirements.
>
> We might also list some other projects which "must be included in their
> entirety in the product".
>
> Would you see any further refinement of the requirements?
>
> If we thought we could go ahead with those requirements and open the
> program to non-Platinum/Gold members, then great.
>
> That allows us to get down to the real business of deciding which APIs
> are required and considering changing the list of required projects.
>


FYI, we started to work on such an API test tool (based on Tempest) and now
have a cute web interface that I'd be happy to demo. This would not
suppress the need to define which functionality are needed to pass, but at
least it's a basis which we currently use to know the state of our own
deployments.

Nick

That's great news, Nic. Looking forward to seeing the demo!



> On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Nicolas Barcet <nicolas@barcet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 17:24 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> > This is how it works now. You're required to run the code.
>> >
>> > Thing is, this is about legal contracts. So enforcement is hazy.
>> > Essentially, if hp signs a trademark usage thing that says we have to
>> > run it, our own lawyers won't let us do different. I think the first
>> > step is to say "OpenStack requires you run the code" ... Then as
>> > violations are brought to our attention, we look in to it.
>>
>> You mean this?
>>
>> https://www.openstack.org/brand/openstack-cloud/
>>
>> We could just add "must pass API compatibility tests" to those technical
>> requirements.
>>
>> We might also list some other projects which "must be included in their
>> entirety in the product".
>>
>> Would you see any further refinement of the requirements?
>>
>> If we thought we could go ahead with those requirements and open the
>> program to non-Platinum/Gold members, then great.
>>
>> That allows us to get down to the real business of deciding which APIs
>> are required and considering changing the list of required projects.
>
>
> FYI, we started to work on such an API test tool (based on Tempest) and now have a cute web interface that I'd be happy to demo. This would not suppress the need to define which functionality are needed to pass, but at least it's a basis which we currently use to know the state of our own deployments.
>
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

On 2013-10-31 18:06:03 -0500 (-0500), Mark Collier wrote:
[...]
> As of January 1st, 2012, your product must pass any Faithful
> Implementation Test Suite (FITS) defined by the Technical
> Committee that will be made available on http://www.openstack.org
> /FITS , to verify that you are implementing a sufficiently
> current and complete version of the software (and exposing
> associated APIs) to ensure compatibility and interoperability.
[...]

"OpenStack FITS. Coming soon. The OpenStack Faithful Implementation
Test Suite will be available in early 2012."

I guess we're a little behind there. Is there any benefit to
revising that ETA or do we wait until there's a more solid timeline
established?
--
Jeremy Stanley

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Rob Hirschfeld and I are chairing the newly approved Interoperability Committee, and we have a kickoff meeting next week. I'm reasonably confident that we'll have a preliminary model for FITS certification by the time of the Icehouse Summit.

We're going to repurpose the existing FITS mailing list for this, so if you want to follow along, you should sign up there.

--

Joshua McKenty
Chief Technology Officer
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
+1 (650) 242-5683
+1 (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> wrote:

> On 2013-10-31 18:06:03 -0500 (-0500), Mark Collier wrote:
> [...]
>> As of January 1st, 2012, your product must pass any Faithful
>> Implementation Test Suite (FITS) defined by the Technical
>> Committee that will be made available on http://www.openstack.org
>> /FITS , to verify that you are implementing a sufficiently
>> current and complete version of the software (and exposing
>> associated APIs) to ensure compatibility and interoperability.
> [...]
>
> "OpenStack FITS. Coming soon. The OpenStack Faithful Implementation
> Test Suite will be available in early 2012."
>
> I guess we're a little behind there. Is there any benefit to
> revising that ETA or do we wait until there's a more solid timeline
> established?
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation