Can we discuss below? I agree with Catherine if we want to have the code stubs 
in place by M2 we will have a DETAILED functional design freeze milestone 
before M2. Having both on the same day makes little sense to me too. To late to 
worry about this for r1 (will just push trough and adjust as needed) but we 
should fix this on the timeline for R2.


> On Aug 9, 2017, at 7:07 AM  EDT, LEFEVRE, CATHERINE <> 
> wrote:
> ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
> Reference for more information.
> 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: 
> [] On Behalf Of Gildas Lanilis
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 10:08 PM
> To:
> 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
> <image003.jpg>
> Gildas Lanilis
> ONAP Release Manager
> Santa Clara CA, USA
> Mobile: 1 415 238 6287
> _______________________________________________
> onap-discuss mailing list

onap-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to