*** PROPOSAL FOR DISCUSSION ***
Amy Zwarico Paweł Pawlak Eric Debeau Cédric Ollivier Andreas Geißler Timo Perala Sylvain Desbureaux
Kenny Paul David McBride cl664y@att.com
Target
Increase transparency on software modules (repositories) included in an ONAP release to enable effective and efficient ...
- security management
ONAP must not depend on unmaintained software modules / projects
- release management
- documentation management
Provide reliable information for all stakeholder (rel mgr, projects, oom, sec, doc) ...
- which software module (repository) is included (was used to build the docker container)
- which version of the software module is included (was used to build the docker container)
Improve the lifecycle management of software modules/projects.
Transparent and reliable knowledge about the relationship of ONAP Release → Docker Container & Version → Repository & Version → Project
Current Situation
- A deployable ONAP release consists of 'maintained' an 'unmaintained' software modules (used to build the docker container).
- Only 'projects' are managed in the release process
- But a 'project' consists of 1-n repositories. Repositories are not managed in the release process.
- If a project is (un)maintained, are all repositories (un)maintained?
- Only 'maintained' projects are managed in the release process.
- But "unmaintained" software modules (docker container) are added to the list of deployed software modules in the end of the release process (oom)
- Unmaintained, but 'participating' projects (not repositories!) of the 'Istanbul' release are:
- Application Authorization Framework AAF
- Application Controller APPC
- External API
- External System Register ESR
- Logging
- MUSIC
- Portal
- Virtual Infrastructure Deployment VID
- The management of 'release participation' ...
- is limited (projects managed, not repositories)
- has distributed responsibilities (relmgr, oom, sec, doc)
- and is not synced and done in a collaborative, end-to-end manner
- Information about the lifecycle state of projects/repositories and their release participation is distributed, manually maintained and not in sync, e.g.
- GIT: repository state (active | read only; Kenny? LFIT?)
- INFO.YAML: project state (inherited to every repo of the project; project lead)
- WIKI: release participation (release manager)
- WIKI: project lifecycle state (Kenny)
- WIKI: documentation tracking per release (doc team)
- WIKI: security vulnerabilities / package updated (sec team)
- OOM: helm charts?
- There is no transparency whether uses cases depend on unmaintained software modules (repositories)
Proposal
The information about software modules (repositories) included in an ONAP release must be managed ...
- by the release manager (responsible) and stakeholder (contributing)
- from the start of the release process (planning phase)
- to the end of the release process
- building the deployable release
- building the release specific documentation
- consistently (one single source) for all stakeholder
- with a high grade of automation
To finally participate in an ONAP release, a software module ...
- must be in the 'maintained' state
- must have created a release branch
- must have updated their documentation to reflect the current state of development
- must have up-to-date release notes (on sub-project level or in the main project)
Stakeholders are only using/managing maintained software components/projects.
Use cases are based only on functionality provided by maintained projects/repositories.
The release process ensures the compliance and provides appropriate means to check and react in a timely manner.
Additional Information
Excel Spreadsheet
conf.py (istanbul) showing the current situation for documentation