Release Process Development Meeting

You may subscribe to the meeting and get meeting logistics here.

Attendees: @David McBride , @Scot Steele, @Pankaj.Goyal

• Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status

  • https://lf-anuket.atlassian.net/wiki/x/5QlOAQ

• Meeting time change

• Reviewed requirements and AIs with Pankaj

• ACTION:  David to create doodle poll for new meeting time

  • Would 1 pm work?  Late for CET, but would enable Walter to attend.

Attendees: @David McBride , @Scot Steele, @Al Morton, @Sandra Jackson

• Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status

  • https://lf-anuket.atlassian.net/wiki/x/5QlOAQ

• Reviewed actions from last meeting

Attendees: @David McBride , @Scot Steele, @Al Morton, @Pankaj.Goyal

• Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status

  • https://lf-anuket.atlassian.net/wiki/x/5QlOAQ

• No progress on updating Jira issues, despite email request last week.

• @David McBrideto follow up with Rihab and James regarding RI development status

• @David McBride to send mail to spec team reminding them of M3 requirements

• @Scot Steele to schedule meeting to discuss prelim documentation req for M3

Attendees: @David McBride , @Scot Steele, @Al Morton, @Sandra Jackson  

• Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status

  • https://lf-anuket.atlassian.net/wiki/x/5QlOAQ

• No RC workstream lead, so not considering RC status for now.

• No high priority Jira issues.  However, we need to remind software teams to update issue status and to consider whether some issues should be deferred to a future release (action for David).

  • Lakelse issues

Attendees: @David McBride , @Scot Steele, @Emma Foley,  @Al Morton, @Trevor Bramwell, @Georg Kunz, @Sandra Jackson  

• Discuss release artifacts plan

  • Format

  • Hosting

    • FYI - @Sridhar Rao 's questions are as follows:

      • (a) What will be the docker registry (for artifact submission) - dockerhub (opnfv - https://hub.docker.com/u/opnfv or anuket, no charges), or private (LF pods, maintain our own registry), or every projects maintain their artifacts on their own? 

      • (b) How do we submit these artifacts - accounts will be shared with all PTLs, or there will be a separate build machine with account configured?  Projects are currently using dockerhub - opnfv.  Migration is not a problem for ViNePerf - other projects need  migrations if a new (free) account or a private account is chosen.

  • Timing

  • Representation on the website

  • Retention

• @Emma Foleysuggests that we continue to use the current jobs for publishing artifacts, but publish them to "anuket" instead of "opnfv"

  • @Trevor Bramwell says that this could be done relatively easily

  • Needs to be coordinated with updating jobs that pull down artifacts

  • Note that GitHub jobs are already configured to publish to the anuket registry https://hub.docker.com/u/anuket)

  • Trevor suggests publishing to both GitLab and dockerhub to avoid limitations on dockerhub.  Also has the benefit of security scanning in GitLab.

• Artifacts will be submitted through build jobs running on Anuket resources.

• Project Tasks:

  • Change build jobs to reference /anuket instead of /opnfv in dockerhub (should be a simple search-and-replace)

    • Update documentation

  • Create a job to publish to GitLab (plan for after GitLab migration)

• Scope 

  • Any project that publishes container artifacts (Barometer, VinePERF, Kuberef (? needs more discussion), NFVBench)

• Artifact Management Plan

  • Format 

    • No specific requirements on artifact packaging/format

    • Artifacts are accessible and the documentation clearly explains how to install them and use them

  • Hosting

    • Containers (see notes above)

    • Other artifacts

      • Use Google storage (S3)

      • @Emma Foley - there are existing jobs in releng that enable uploading of artifacts
        
        

        • Need to be updated to publish to an anuket specific location

      • Download page on website could use URLs to point to documentation and artifacts (important to emphasize documentation first to promote successful installation and avoid confusion)

      • Also publish URLs in documentation

  • Timing

    • Artifacts are prepared between M5 and M6 (see notes on process page)

  • Website

    • Represent releases with pointers to documentation for each project.  Do not point to software artifacts.  Rely on documentation to describe detailed installation process, along with pointers to software artifacts.

Attendees: @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Emma Foley, @Sandra Jackson @Cédric Ollivier @Al Morton @Rihab Banday

• Discuss any remaining issues with M2 (Aug 31)

• Discuss M3 - Oct 19

• Meeting canceled due to lack of attendees (likely because it's the day before a 3-day weekend)

Attendees: @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Emma Foley, @Sandra Jackson @Cédric Ollivier @Al Morton @Rihab Banday

• Review status of Lakelse release in advance of M2 on Aug 31.

• Text

Canceled due to confusion over the bridge info.

Attendees: @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Emma Foley, @Sandra Jackson @Cédric Ollivier @Al Morton @Rihab Banday

• RA Review

• Text

Attendees: @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Emma Foley, @Sandra Jackson @Cédric Ollivier @Al Morton @Rihab Banday

• RA Review

• There are two bridges listed for the meeting, this causes confusion on joining - needs to be fixed

• Focus on answering the question: Is this testable, as opposed to scoping a particular release

Attendees: @David McBride, @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Sridhar Rao, @Georg Kunz, @Rihab Banday, @Emma Foley, @Sandra Jackson

• RA Review

  • Discuss review process

  • Prioritize reviews

  • Review GitHub issue submission guidelines

• Group consensus that we focus on RA2, with RA1 left for offline review.

• Pankaj suggests skipping 2.2 and beginning with section 2.3.

• Emma suggests that we have a mapping between tests and requirements (i.e., which tests apply to a specific requirement)

  • Does this already exist?

• We will initially review only "must", then later review "should" requirements if there is time.

• Reviewed table 2.3 through requirement req.inf.ntw.10.

• Scot and Emma to host next week's meeting (Aug 13)

Attendees: @David McBride, @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Al Morton

• Review M2 Tasks

• Need to organize review of RA1 and RA2

  • Assign review to software project PTLs

  • Break out requirements into tables

  • Conduct standup review with PTLs in release meeting to check progress

  • Al suggests that we discuss in TSC meeting

  • New sections created:  https://lf-anuket.atlassian.net/wiki/x/z_RNAQ

Attendees: @David McBride, @Pankaj.Goyal, @Scot Steele, @Cédric Ollivier, @Jim Baker

• Review M1 Status

• Meeting canceled next two weeks (July 16, July 23)

• RI lags dependency on RA (i.e., RI depends on previous release of RA)

• RC is dependent on current development of RA

• Cedric willing to be workstream lead for RC1/RC2 based on no changes to CI through the Lakelse release.

• TSC needs to make a decision about RI criteria for release in terms of how much of RC the RI can pass

  • Discuss with TSC

  • One proposal:  set a minimum threshold percentage, then publish results with RI release

  • Need to be clear about threshold measurement

• Cedric emphasizes that status/stability of RELENG will affect the success of the Lakelse release

• Next meeting July 30

Attendees: @David McBride, @Pankaj.Goyal, @Al Morton, @Scot Steele

• Review M1 Status

• Meeting canceled next week (July 2)

• Discussed status of M1

  • Still missing most project release plans

  • RC/RI planning page is mostly incomplete

  • Schedule for M1 appears to be at risk

• Noted that there is some disagreement/confusion about traceability between specifications and software artifacts (e.g., RC/RI ==> RA)

Attendees: @David McBride, @Jim Baker , @Pankaj.Goyal

• Review M1 Status

• Update GitHub with release name string and milestone dates

• Self release process

• Meeting canceled next week (June 18)

• Reviewed status of CNTT/ GitHub

  • Milestones already entered

  • Pankaj added label for "Lakelse"

Attendees: @David McBride, @Scot Steele , @Jim Baker 

• Discuss email to team describing M1 tasks.  Who are the workstream leads?

• Review presentation material for release process session at Dev & Test Forum next week

• Update GitHub with release name string and milestone dates

• M1 task email

  • Addressed by Pankaj response to my email

• Dev & Test Forum presentation review

  • Added slide regarding post sign off 

• GitHub updates

  • Pankaj unavailable, so deferring to next week

Canceled

Attendees: @David McBride, @Scot Steele , @Pankaj.Goyal , @Jim Baker , @Al Morton

• Determine processes for milestone processes for M4 and M5

• Discuss self release process

• Schedule proposal for Lakelse

• Text

Attendees: @David McBride, @Scot Steele , @Pankaj.Goyal , @Jim Baker , @Al Morton

• Determine processes for milestone processes for M4 and M5

• Discuss self release process

• Schedule proposal for Lakelse

• Text

Attendees: @David McBride, @Scot Steele, @Pankaj.Goyal @Al Morton

• Determine processes for milestone processes for M3 and M4

• Discuss Independent release process

• Schedule proposal for Lakelse

• Release process principles

  • A project or workstream may slip an internal release milestone with TSC approval

  • A project or workstream may be included in the major release after the scheduled release, with TSC approval

    • The project must declare for the Supplemental  Release (M7, typically 2 to 4 weeks late) prior to the  M3 date.

Attendees: @David McBride, @Pankaj.Goyal, @Emma Foley, @Jim Baker, @Scot Steele

• Determine processes for milestone criteria for M2 and M3

• Discuss Independent release process

• @Al Morton Test projects are fulfilling a list of test cases from the requirements listed in the Reference Conformance documentation 

  • Tests that are in the Reference Conformance verify the Reference Architecture/Reference Model

  • End user buy-in – validation of the RC/Anuket Assured badges have value in the acquisition process

  • Traceability: Every test in RC needs to be linked to a specification in RM/RA AND every spec item needs a test

Attendees: @David McBride, @Jim Baker, @Pankaj.Goyal

• Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues

• Determine processes for milestone criteria

• Small turnout this week due to OpenStack event.

• Completed documentation of processes for M1 and started on M2.

• @Pankaj.Goyal shared template from Elbrus release used by work streams to document high level scope

• @Gergely Csatari shared process for resolving feedback to specifications using GitHub Issues

Attendees: @David McBride, @Ildiko , @Pankaj.Goyal @Gergely Csatari, @Al Morton, @James Gu

• Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues

• Determine processes for milestone criteria

• Text

• Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues

• Text

Attendees: @David McBride, @Al Morton, @Karine Sevilla, @Olivier Smith, @Karine Sevilla

• Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues

• Reviewed comments in red from @Pankaj.Goyal

• Clarified that the milestone table only indicates criteria for meeting the milestone (i.e., tasks finished), not how the activities are accomplished, or when they start. Those will be determined separately.

• @Karine Sevilla suggested adding a task to finalize spec version numbering for M5.

• @Al Morton suggested changing the M1 milestone name from "Release Planning" to "Release Definition".

• After above changes, milestone plan is at V .19.