Re: Access to the PCP QA Suite

[Mike Mason <mmlnx@xxxxxxxxxx>]

How would you feel about a separate open source QA suite that uses the 
existing suite (or a subset) as a starting point, then evolves 
separately from the proprietary suite.  I know it's not ideal, but it's 
better than no open source suite or starting from scratch in my opinion. 
 SGI could contribute the existing suite with the caveat that it has 
limited resources to contribute or answer questions.  PCP contributors 
and others, like the CGL validation team, could modify the test suite 
into something suitable for the open source community.  Distros and 
groups like CGL would be more likely to adopt PCP if this suite existed.

Ken McDonell wrote:
> I've been lurking (and enjoying the sudden flurry of activity on the
> list!).
>
> The issues for the PCP QA are as follows:
>
> 0. The value to PCP developers and PCP in general is beyond dispute,
>    so this is _not_ an issue.
>
> 1. It is _big_ - 600+ scripts, 180+ source files with 42,000+ lines of
>    code.
>
> 2. The whole suite runs daily on a number of machines within SGI, and
>    has a fair degree of local customization ... hostnames where various
>    versions of PCP are running, ip addr of a friednly Cisco router,
>    hostname where a promiscuous X server is hiding, etc
>
> 3. It has a lot of multi-platform infrastructre with individual tests
>    that are skipped on IRIX or some IRIX versions, ia32 Linux, ia64
>    Linux, some versions of PCP, etc.  As more platforms are added to
>    the mix this will grow.
>
> 4. There is a large potential for gatekeeper load to answer questions
>    based on 1. to 3. above and to reconcile changes back from the
>    community.  There is little point in making the suite available
>    and then not following up with the gatekeeper function.
>
> 5. We have a potential takeback assignment problem ... the PCP QA suite
>    is used within SGI as QA for the proprietary version of PCP ... not
>    everyone would be happy to have changes taken back by SGI to be used
>    in this way.
>
> Note there is no issue associated with IP or releasing this to the open
> source community as a matter of principle (I'm a member of the SGI
> committee that judges these matters, so I'm pretty sure of this).
>
> The _big_ item is 4. ... I just do not have the resources to sign up to
> this at the level required to ensure the test suite remains useful to
> SGI and the community.
>
> I'm open to any creative suggestions that would help us more forward on
> this matter.


--
Mike Mason
IBM Linux Technology Center, RAS Group
Beaverton, OR, USA
mmlnx@xxxxxxxxxx
(503) 578-4123