Good morning Gildas,

Thank you for building this new proposal.

Please find my feedback.

Slide 4

*        The goal of the Functionality Freeze is to de-risk the release by 
providing a stable target for integration with other components. It marks the 
end of the API definition coding and feature addition activities. At 
Functionality Freeze, API stubs must be coded.
[CLEF]:
I do not think it is possible because there is no previous design freeze 
milestone prior M2
At functionality freeze, the design and the documentation should be available 
but not yet the source code.
The implementation of the API is one of the targets of M3.

*        After Functionality Freeze, no new visible features/APIs are to be 
added to the current ONAP release codebase.
[CLEF]: Please consider my previous feedback. It is not practical to freeze the 
ONAP source code at M2 milestone if there is no previous design freeze.

*        At Functionality Freeze, the following activities have been achieved:
-        All committed functionalities have been coded and committed to the 
onap repos.
[CLEF]: See previous statement, what do you consider as left for M3 & M4 if all 
the code is already implemented

-        All source code has automated unit test (Project Team).

[CLEF]: All the already available source code should have an automatic unit 
test but the code not yet available will also require additional unit tests
-        The team is meeting regularly and has completed at least one sprint.
[CLEF]: Is there a reason to add this new statement? Or do you consider Sprint0 
- typically use to set the preparation work to be performed by the Scrum Team.
-        Seed code has been delivered to LF, scanned, and deposited into ONAP 
repos
[CLEF]: Can we suggest to LF team that they provide the scan results no later 
than M2-2 weeks so the project team has enough time to fix any identified issue?
It also requires that the seed code is available to LF, M2-3 weeks? Is it 
achievable?

               Please also add to the slide 3 - the API Stubs as part of 
activities to be achieved by M2

Many thanks & regards
Catherine

From: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Gildas Lanilis
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:08 PM
To: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-discuss] M2 Functionality Frezee feedback request

Dear ONAP Community Members,

This email is to follow up on an action item that came up during M2 
Functionality freeze earlier today at TSC weekly meeting.

The requirement was to clarify and propose changes on some elements of M2 
definition and more particularly on the expectation from a code perspective at 
M2 Functionality Freeze.

The attached proposal presents the current definition and highlights the 
proposed changes to meet the above expectations.

Let me know your thoughts and we will take it from there to refine the 
definition.


Thanks,
Gildas

[HuaweiLogowithName]
Gildas Lanilis
ONAP Release Manager
Santa Clara CA, USA
gildas.lani...@huawei.com<mailto:gildas.lani...@huawei.com>
Mobile: 1 415 238 6287

_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

Reply via email to