Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

Agenda Topics:

SO Guilin Maintenance release.


H release:

Project Status in Honolulu Release

Honolulu Impact View per Component

New:

H release M1 Criteria

SO-3424 - Getting issue details... STATUS


H release review items

type key summary assignee reporter priority status resolution created updated due
Refresh


Blocking issues :

key summary type created updated due assignee reporter priority status resolution
Refresh


License scan issues:

SO-3292 - Getting issue details... STATUS


https://gerrit.onap.org/r/c/oom/+/111328

SO-3243 - Getting issue details... STATUS


SO committer promotion:

Service Orchestrator


Way forward for Honolulu:

What went wrong:

  1. Communication with OOM was not effective
  2. OOM delays impacted SO feature delivery delays
  3. • Master branch was not stable because a lot of features and Java 11 upgrade and certificate issues
  4. • Some testing required additional OOM changes
  5. • OOM best practices were not broadcasted to the feature teams
  6. • Security best practices / guidance came out in the middle/late of development cycle
  7. • Image release number changed multiple times during the Guilin release

What was good:

  1. The team could come out of the difficult time and meet the target
  2. Response time from SO team was really good
  3. In the end the issues were are fixed a release was fix.

What can be improved:

  1. Reduced code fragments (new projects on the gerrit) for build
  2. Introduce the gating as part of the jenkins verification process  (2 edged sword to deal with, work with the details).
  3. Increase in auto verification
  4. • OOM best practices / guidance should come earlier and documented
  • No labels