Bug 834693 - We need a better way of tracking leveraged options for reviewers [NEEDINFO]
We need a better way of tracking leveraged options for reviewers
Status: NEW
Product: Red Hat Hardware Certification Program
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Policy Guide (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Rob Landry
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-06-22 15:32 EDT by Gregg Shick
Modified: 2012-06-22 15:44 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
rlandry: needinfo? (gregg.shick)

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Gregg Shick 2012-06-22 15:32:25 EDT
Description of problem:

We need a better way of tracking leveraged options for reviewers.  With every new server submission we are forced to have the same review discussion that basically goes:

"this leverage id that HP has used multiple times for multiple years,  are you really sure it goes with this option".

My suggestion, when a component is sumbitted that is to be used for leveraging, allow me (HP) to place all the part numbers that are covered by that submission into the BZ and that option list should always be viewable.  At that point we can have the discussion with RH if those additional leveraged controllers are indeed eligible to be leveraged.  Once that has been agreed to, reviewers only need to make sure the part # is in the leverage ID I provide.  

We would also need the ability to add to this BZ as new options become available that would be covered. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
Comment 1 Rob Landry 2012-06-22 15:44:07 EDT
Hi Gregg,

In the last catalog update we added a field labeled "Certification Classification"; one of the values for this field is "Leverage Pool (Private)".  The purpose of this option is that a component cert could be opened where the component is not listed but instead builds a pool from which leverage is drawn.  

This does not preclude doing leverage from within systems, but for commonly used options if it's in it's own certification like this I think it may be similar to your request above.  We can then in comment of the leverage pool certification keep track of the various part numbers that the NIC might be known/sold as.

Leverage pool is not a complete feature, (for example there is no way to search for cert class == leverage pool from the UI) so we will need to continue to improve it, but would adopting this method help the situation?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.