Honolulu: Lessons Learned



Description

Documented by

Comments / Follow-up

Description

Documented by

Comments / Follow-up

1

Simplify documentation tracking table

@David McBride

Planned for Istanbul

2

Track repositories not documents in the document tracking table

@David McBride

Planned for Istanbul

3

Create separation between completion of code reviews and container delivery by adding another milestone

@David McBride

M3 tasks moved to M4.  Need to discuss tasks for M3.  Planned for Istanbul

4

Reconsider time between RCs.  One week seems too tight.

@David McBride

Only plan a single RC, beginning with Istanbul

5

Reconsider RCs altogether.  What do they contribute? Are they necessary? (Kenny)

@David McBride

Only plan a single RC, beginning with Istanbul

6

Better tracking of OOM / integration status.   Gerrit filter that Krzysztof created was helpful.

@David McBride

Needs more discussion.  Possible for Istanbul.

7

xtesting dockers (tests) and xtesting-onap (test launchers) should have been frozen before RC0..so next time we have to think to that..Integration shall guarantee a stable testing baseline to OOM to gate confortably. (Morgan https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/7653)

@David McBride

Needs more discussion.  Possible for Istanbul.

8

Create JIRA Management Tasks for Sign-Off (OOM, Integration and Doc)?

@cl664y@att.com

Needs more discussion.  Possible for Istanbul.

9

Strong pushback on Project Patch Acceptance page.  Confusing? Redundant? Should we remove.

@David McBride

Removed for Istanbul.

10

Requirements should be completed on time.  Need more schedule discipline.  Milestones missed should defer requirements to next release.

@cl664y@att.com



11

Need a better defined schedule for maintenance releases.

@Vijay Kumar

@David McBride :  should define a process before we define a schedule.