Anuket Project
Release Process Development Meeting
- David McBride
- Jim Baker
- Emma Foley
- Al Morton
You may subscribe to the meeting and get meeting logistics here.
October 22, 2021
Attendees: David McBride , Scot Steele, Pankaj.Goyal
Agenda:
- Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status
- Meeting time change
Notes:
- 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.
October 15, 2021
Attendees: David McBride , Scot Steele, Al Morton, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated)
Agenda:
- Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status
Notes:
- Reviewed actions from last meeting
October 8, 2021
Attendees: David McBride , Scot Steele, Al Morton, Pankaj.Goyal
Agenda:
- Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status
Notes:
- 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
October 1, 2021
Attendees: David McBride , Scot Steele, Al Morton, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated)
Agenda:
- Review M3 milestone tasks and Lakelse status
Notes:
- 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).
Sept 10, 2021
Attendees: David McBride , Scot Steele, Emma Foley, Al Morton, Trevor Bramwell, Georg Kunz, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated)
Agenda:
- 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.
- FYI - Sridhar Rao 's questions are as follows:
- Timing
- Representation on the website
- Retention
Notes:
- 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)
- Change build jobs to reference /anuket instead of /opnfv in dockerhub (should be a simple search-and-replace)
- 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.
- Format
Sept 3, 2021 (Canceled)
Attendees: Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Emma Foley, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated) Cédric Ollivier Al Morton Rihab Banday
Agenda:
- Discuss any remaining issues with M2 (Aug 31)
- Discuss M3 - Oct 19
Notes:
- Meeting canceled due to lack of attendees (likely because it's the day before a 3-day weekend)
August 27, 2021
Attendees: Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Emma Foley, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated) Cédric Ollivier Al Morton Rihab Banday
Agenda:
- Review status of Lakelse release in advance of M2 on Aug 31.
Notes:
- Text
August 20, 2021 (Canceled)
Canceled due to confusion over the bridge info.
Attendees: Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Emma Foley, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated) Cédric Ollivier Al Morton Rihab Banday
Agenda:
Notes:
- Text
August 13, 2021
Attendees: Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Emma Foley, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated) Cédric Ollivier Al Morton Rihab Banday
Agenda:
Notes:
- 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
August 6, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Sridhar Rao, Georg Kunz, Rihab Banday, Emma Foley, Sandra Jackson (Deactivated)
Agenda:
- RA Review
- Discuss review process
- Prioritize reviews
- Review GitHub issue submission guidelines
Notes:
- 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)
July 30, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Al Morton
Agenda:
- Review M2 Tasks
Notes:
- 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
July 23, 2021 (Canceled)
July 16, 2021 (Canceled)
July 9, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Pankaj.Goyal, Scot Steele, Cédric Ollivier, Jim Baker
Agenda:
- Review M1 Status
- Meeting canceled next two weeks (July 16, July 23)
Notes:
- 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
July 2, 2021 (Canceled)
June 25, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Pankaj.Goyal, Al Morton, Scot Steele
Agenda:
- Review M1 Status
- Meeting canceled next week (July 2)
Notes:
- 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)
June 18, 2021 (Canceled)
June 11, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Jim Baker , Pankaj.Goyal
Agenda:
- Review M1 Status
- Update GitHub with release name string and milestone dates
- Self release process
- Meeting canceled next week (June 18)
Notes:
- Reviewed status of CNTT/ GitHub
- Milestones already entered
- Pankaj added label for "Lakelse"
June 4, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Scot Steele , Jim Baker
Agenda:
- 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
Notes:
- 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
May 21, 2021 (CANCELED)
Canceled
May 21, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Scot Steele , Pankaj.Goyal , Jim Baker , Al Morton
Agenda:
- Determine processes for milestone processes for M4 and M5
- Discuss self release process
- Schedule proposal for Lakelse
Notes:
- Text
May 14, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Scot Steele , Pankaj.Goyal , Jim Baker , Al Morton
Agenda:
- Determine processes for milestone processes for M4 and M5
- Discuss self release process
- Schedule proposal for Lakelse
Notes:
- Text
May 7, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Scot Steele, Pankaj.Goyal Al Morton
Agenda:
- Determine processes for milestone processes for M3 and M4
- Discuss Independent release process
- Schedule proposal for Lakelse
Notes:
- 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.
Apr 30, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Pankaj.Goyal, Emma Foley, Jim Baker, Scot Steele
Agenda:
- Determine processes for milestone criteria for M2 and M3
- Discuss Independent release process
Notes:
- 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
Apr 23, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Jim Baker, Pankaj.Goyal
Agenda:
- Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues
- Determine processes for milestone criteria
Notes:
- 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
Apr 16, 2021 (CANCELED)
Apr 9, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Ildiko , Pankaj.Goyal Gergely Csatari, Al Morton, James Gu
Agenda
- Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues
- Determine processes for milestone criteria
Notes
- Text
Apr 2, 2021 (CANCELED)
Agenda
- Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues
Notes
- Text
Mar 26, 2021
Attendees: David McBride, Al Morton, Karine Sevilla, Olivier Smith, Karine Sevilla
Agenda
- Review Release Process Milestone Planning and resolve issues
Notes
- 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.