...
- Schedule: https://teamup.com/event/show/id/ssnLsFsRy4L7EuokSpVQhvextFdtSE
- Preso:
View file name Shift to Release Train_V1.pdf page 2020 June Virtual LFN Developer & Testing Forum Topic Proposals height 150 - Recording:
View file name LFN_June_vDTF_Shift to Release Train.mp4 page 2020 June Virtual Recordings height 150
Minutes
- Catherine Lefevre these are the long term thoughts on where we may want to move
- Marek Chwal highlights the many dependencies between trains anc communities
- Ciaran Johnston proposal would require stronger alignment between communities
- Robert Varga would need to do more upstream work and smaller "chunks" of deliverables
- Ranny Haiby could be shorter self releases
- Catherine Lefevre a control loop would be required - hard to represent on slide 9. perspective is that branch would occur @ RC0
- Krzysztof Opasiak continousous development - freeze current and immediately branch for next release. as-is end up in a weird state that we can't enforce for next release. not all best practices are agreed to in a release because they have not been listed as requirements
- Marek Chwal Product owners work the in "gray train"
- Catherine Lefevre agreed that better alignment of best practices
- Benjamin Cheung for ONAP could we ease into a transition rather then a big jump
- Catherine Lefevre one approace could be to prototype with a couple of components
- Robert Varga in ODL basically 3 types of projects "managed release integrated", "snapshot integrated", "self-release" . Making more and more projects release-integrated - selecting a few well understood and well staffed projects to try this out in ONAP
- Dan Timoney Controller Design Studio (CDS) can pursue it's own cycle because the # of cross dependencies are limited.
- Ram Krishna Verma is 2-3 monts to get to SR4
- Ciaran Johnston quality of content @ SR1 should be same as SR4
- Catherine Lefevre after M4 need to make sure there are no regressions