General Comments:
OMG this is so much improved over Helium/Hydrogen :)
Principles to Consider:
I would suggest that we consider the following principles in looking at the Simultaneous Release Plan:
1) Requirements on Projects should be:
a)
Known: by projects prior to opening of the Simultaneous Release (projects can’t commit to the unknown)
b) Doable: clear and tested instructions for how to accomplish them (requirements must be doable)
c) Confirmable: it should be clear how a project or a third party would know that a requirement is met
d) I abbreviate this below as
KDC.
e) Based on a lot of confusion seen during Helium, I think part of
K is being referenced in the ‘Requirements for Participation’ section not
just in the schedule or other sections (though I think listing there to is important).
2) When considering new requirements I’d strongly council that we consider doing it in two phases:
a) Reporting/Notification (RN):
The first Simultaneous Release Plan in which we are looking at a new requirement,
we simply require reporting of whether it was done or not. This allows us to find out whether the requirement
actually makes sense/works/is really doable. It is a strong defense against us requiring something that sounds good
but turns out to be insane.
b) Requiring (Req): If a
Reporting/Notification requirement went well in the previous Simultaneous Release, we could the promote
it to a requirement in the subsequent ones. We know it can be done (people did it and reported on it), we’ve sorted out
(hopefully) the kinks etc.
Detailed Comments:
1) Definitions:
a) I do not feel we have the necessary tooling to allow us to manage the Legacy/Tentative/Provisional distinction realistically.
I think developing that tooling and asking for folks to mark APIs by end of Lithium may be reasonable (if someone is willing to do the
tooling), but I do not think it is reasonable to ask folks to so by M1. Perhaps this should be
RN this time around.
b) We also desperately need to be able to mark APIs ‘Internal’. Not all API looking things are really meant of external consumption. Accessibility is
not the litmus test as one cannot reasonably control it.
c) We had talked about rolling RCs… did any of that make it into the Plan?
d) "Deadlines for Release Candidates (RC0, RC1 and RC1) and the release are the same regardless of offset. Deadlines for M1 and M2 are offset by +1 week and +2 weeks as no code is involved.
Full details can be found in the dates listed in the Schedule table.” could we strike “as no code in involved”? Bug fixes change code :)
2) Requirements for Participation:
a) Could someone explain “All Milestone deliverables will be verified by the Lithium Release Management staff and/or the TSC” - I am confused as to what this means,
could we get some clarification here?
I would find it very odd for *all* release deliverables to be verified… but I could imagine someone verifying things like ‘Yep, project Foo is reporting to Sonar’. Also not clear on
what the mechanism of verification
here is. My gut is there is something very good under this sentence… but I’m not at all clear about it. I suspect this could be made very very good by simply making it clear that someone
should carry out the
confirmation (C
in KDC) and record it. Anyone *should* be able to
C (Confirm) a requirement… but someone *should* and should record it :)
3) Schedule:
a ) I am uncomfortable with M0 (Lithium Open) proceeding actual finalization of the Simultaneous Release Plan, in part because of
b) I feel strongly that we need to provide projects the full 4 week Milestone Period to sort out meeting their M1 obligations.
c) ‘New Project Infra’: This date seems very very very late in the game to me. Especially with Holiday’s looming. Could we define this as an SLA from project approval date?
“SLA for provisioning of new project infra will be no later than 3 business days after project approval. Verification of correct functioning of new project infra working for all
committers shall happen no later
than 1 week after project creation.” This way we can actually know we have infra and its working for the committers. Also, I’d like us to work out how to make this
KDC, and clearly tempered by reality with input from
the infra team. I would say minimally though that every project must have working infra prior to M1.
d)
M2: I am deeply uncomfortable with “Documentation Project to Publish Documentation requirements for participating projects”. If we want integration and documentation requirements for the Simultaneous Release Plan,
we need to get them up front as part of the plan, and have in hand the *how* of their accomplishment so that projects can know what they are signing up for an how to do it and how to
know they’ve done it.
Basically, this fails
KDC.
e)
M3: Could we get some clarity on "TENTATIVE APIs are declared go/no-go” ( I have no idea who declares this, what it means, how it is communicated, or what its import is)
(again, I suspect this is pure goodness, just underspecified ;) ) This kinda fails
KDC.
f)
M3: What is a documentation plan? Do we have a template for it? Unless I am mistaken, this fails
KDC.
g)
M3: Could “Karaf features defined” be expanded to “Karaf features defined and included in integration”? Or possible “Karaf features defined, OSGI tested (aka, they wire), and included in integration” ? (again, seeking a
KDC here that matches our
desired outcome :)
h)
M3: Could we make the requirements around Integration and System test plans
KDC?
i)
M5: Could we set a date and time for RC[0-2] cutting up front? Is there a reason not to?
j)
M5: Could we add something about reporting to the blocking bugs spreadsheet here? That was mega useful :)
4) Participating Projects
Could we get the table of the fields we’d like listed in this section up front? I suspect George could do something awesome here :)
5) Communication Channels:
a) Could we get this section in sync with the Leadership and Communication Section in
Requirements for Participation?
b) Could we consider starting up daily IRC meeting around the RC timeframe? Not sure if we want to or not, but we have productively done so in the past. Would like to call it out up
front.
Ed
On Oct 22, 2014, at 7:14 PM, Colin Dixon <
colin@...> wrote:
