Page Comparison

• Amsterdam doc project branch created and tracking updates in any other repo providing documentation  that has an Amsterdam branch. For those that did not have an Amsterdam branch, we are using head of the master branch as of ~11/24 4pm EST.
• Project repos that still need to be tagged:
  • Integration  

• Both master and amsterdam are being published at read the docs.  The default when someone enter http://docs.onap.org is master and the the developer wiki download link currently points to master.    Should we change this?

•  Create JIRA ticket(s) for each item below  Rich Bennett

• Each PTL committer for the repos list in column 2, to identify the hash and create a release branch "amsterdam".
• Sync up the doc project amsterdam branch submodule references with created amsterdam branches, 

  Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 4733707d-2057-3a0f-ae5e-4fd8aff50176 key DOC-210

•  Switch DW download link to RTD amsterdam when branches above are completed Rich Bennett   

SDC and Modeling are using 1.1.0 - is this acceptable - should we just have one naming convention?

Questions to be answered whenever the TSC votes to create a named release:

1. where do residual improvements go for Amsterdam
2. where do major new changes go for Beijing
3. when do we start merging the # 2 changes to master.

We can probably accommodate different names for (#1) and/or some delay to starting #2 as long as everyone has the same view a timeline.   Is there isn’t a better way use tags, eg

1. on the RC dates…. A  Release Candidate tag is placed on every repo within a very short time by LF (< 1 hour),
2. tests proceed using only tagged candidate versions
3. If major tests fail, fix and goto the next RC (step 1)
4. Declare a release from the last RC tags
5. if / when any change is needed, a branch is created from the last RC tag

Topic for lessons learned at Santa Clara F2F? gg2147@att.com

• Forward these issue notes to Gildas for discussion

Touch base with OpenNFV / other Open Source projects?