Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


IRC Minutes 

Recording .  Meeting starts at timestamp 06:25:50 (385:50)

Agenda ItemRequested byNotes / Links

Beijing Release Calendar Proposal


Committer Diversity & Upstream First Cultural DiscussionHelen

December 11-13 Amsterdam eventMazin

ONAP MarketingLisa CaywoodAvailable via the recording only due to context dependent content
Versioningjamil chawki

#onap-meeting: TSC, 2017-09-27-F2F

Meeting started by kennypaul at 12:51:03 UTC (full logs). 

Meeting summary

  1. rollcall (kennypaul, 12:51:47)
    1. Huabing Zhao, Proxy of Zhaoxing Meng, ZTE (Huabing_Zhao, 12:53:39)
    2. Jason Hunt, IBM (JasonHunt, 12:58:17)
    3. Stephen Terrill, Ericsson (SteveT, 13:03:05)
    4. Ranny Haiby, Nokia (RannyHaiby, 13:03:23)
    5. Frank Brockners, Cisco (frankbrockners, 13:05:15)
    6. Chris Donley Huawei (cdonley, 13:06:03)
    7. , Arthur Berezin, Cloudify (ArthurBerezin, 13:09:19)
    8. aayush bhatnagar Reliance Jio (AayushJio, 13:11:07)
  2. Opening and Agenda (SteveT, 13:11:18)
    1. jamil for Orange (jamil, 13:11:29)
    2. Mazin of AT&T is present (phrobb, 13:11:51)
    3. Alla of Amdocs is present (phrobb, 13:12:45)
    4. Lingli of China Mobile is present (phrobb, 13:13:13)
  3. Beijing Release Calender Proposal (SteveT, 13:14:28)
    1. presented by Gildas (SteveT, 13:14:36)
    2. Susana Sabater Vodafone (Susana, 13:14:50)
    3. 6 month release would imply May 24 release for Beijing. (SteveT, 13:19:06)
    4. Question was raised whether we should support also an additional Amasterdam release. (SteveT, 13:30:14)
    5. Question - could we testing earlier? (SteveT, 13:30:44)
    6. The response was that we can (SteveT, 13:31:20)
    7. Target M1 for architecture and S3P reqs (SteveT, 13:33:19)
    8. Question: Do we maintain Amsterdamn or not. We need to decide what to do for vulnerabilities as well. (SteveT, 13:36:37)
    9. Start with code integration as earlier as possible (3 months??). (SteveT, 13:37:47)
    10. Need to decide on what is a release and do we branch. i.e. what is the branching strategy. (SteveT, 13:38:42)
    11. Extend the period between api freeze and code freeze by bringing earlier (SteveT, 13:40:07)
    12. Lingli asks if it is possible to offset the projects so that those projects that are depended upon hit API freeze sooner then those that depend on them. (phrobb, 13:41:57)
    13. Consider API freeze based on dependancy graph. e (SteveT, 13:43:51)
    14. Discussion about branching. Need to be very selective about the defects to print and bring from the main branch into the amasterdam release. Then there was a proposal that we should not have maintanance of Amsterdamn. (SteveT, 13:47:56)
    15. there was a proposal that a team could decide its branching strategy (i.e. when it decides what is master and what is "release". (SteveT, 13:51:52)
    16. Consider that SONAR works of the latest update. (SteveT, 13:52:39)
    17. When considering the branching strategy, need to consider whether allowing people to play with a version and fix the bugs. (SteveT, 13:53:56)
    18. Will come back to in the TSC Oct 5th. (SteveT, 13:55:11)
    19. As additional information, there is a separation of component releases from ONAP release (SteveT, 13:58:00)
    20. There is the comment that the Casablanca release will not be November, we should bring it into say Septebmer to align with oh (SteveT, 14:00:52)
  4. Release Versioning (SteveT, 14:01:00)
    1. Release version proposal was presented by Jamil. (SteveT, 14:01:44)
    2. correction - not LATE November. Possibly Sept to align with ODL/OPNFV/etc. or early Nov. TBD. (cdonley, 14:02:04)
    3. proposal is the Symantec versioning (x.y.z). (SteveT, 14:07:51)
    4. If approved we need to update and reflect the minor releases in the planning. (SteveT, 14:10:31)
    5. Helen raised that there has been a proposal for a project to release independently. This means that a project can release without having a "ONAP" release. (SteveT, 14:13:06)
    6. Helen raised that the integration infrastructure supports independent project release. (SteveT, 14:13:49)
    7. comment made recommending that we build a release plan and tools to allow components that don't have child dependents to release totally orthogonally from the ONAP release. ONAP could lead this type of flexibility (phrobb, 14:14:01)
    8. Gildas notes that devs don't like to work on main./bugs on stable release. Others note that bug fixes often happen in master and are cherry-picked to stable branch (phrobb, 14:19:51)
    9. updated proposal will be presented to TSC next week. (SteveT, 14:26:13)
  5. diversity and upstream culture (SteveT, 14:28:16)
    1. There was a question about how to handle the 36 hour rule on commits. The conclusion was that it was ok to abandon the committ at that stage. (SteveT, 14:33:29)
  6. December F2F (SteveT, 14:33:43)
    1. The December meeting will be both a ONAP developer meeting as well as a ONAP user meeting. (SteveT, 14:35:03)
    2. It is on 11-13 December, Santa Clara. (SteveT, 14:35:29)
    3. Aside from Beijing focus, there will be videos etc to address vacation. There is also a consideration of a Hackathon. (SteveT, 14:37:07)
    4. Correction Aside from Beijing focus, there will be videos etc to address end users. There is consideration of a hackathon on the first day.(SteveT, 14:40:55)
    5. There was a suggestion for a hackfest of the developers working on the projects as well. (SteveT, 14:44:31)
    6. Next opportunity would be is in March. (SteveT, 14:48:05)
    7. consider other universities and getting ONAP univeristy material adopted in the universities. (SteveT, 14:48:33)
    8. There was a suggestion from the modelling committee to suggest a 1 day workshop with SDOs. (SteveT, 14:52:28)
  7. ONAP marketing (SteveT, 14:52:44)
    1. Marking update was presented (SteveT, 15:02:14)
    2. If it is a for profit event using ONAP. Inform LF. (SteveT, 15:08:08)
    3. What about also targeting enterprise industry events. (SteveT, 15:08:23)
    4. what about the December OPNFV plugfest? (SteveT, 15:13:04)
    5. - response was that we were trying to colocate the ONAP F2F in december with the OPNFV plugfest. It wasn't fesible. (SteveT, 15:14:08)
  8. Reward (SteveT, 15:14:21)
    1. different awards a suggested . Company, information, .... (SteveT, 15:16:29)
    2. For those that feel strongely about the awards, inform Mazin. (SteveT, 15:17:58)
    3. Apply the awards in the Dec F2F meeting (SteveT, 15:18:40)
  9. Lessons Learned (SteveT, 15:19:42)
    1. Due to lack of time, Eric and Catherine were requested to distribute the work. (SteveT, 15:20:18)
  10. AOB (SteveT, 15:20:23)
    1. Reminder. sub-committee coordinoators to provide weekly update. (SteveT, 15:20:57)
  11. Functional Requirements for R2 (SteveT, 15:22:52)
    1. Alla presented the functional requirements for R2 there were a summary of the UC work. (SteveT, 15:23:20)
    2. This identifies what is considered as important. Further work is required to dig into what is the gap from Release 1 (SteveT, 15:30:58)
    3. integration with thirdparty controllers is interacting with (SteveT, 15:33:27)

Meeting ended at 15:40:46 UTC (full logs). 

Action items

  1. (none)

People present (lines said)

  1. SteveT (58)
  2. phrobb (6)
  3. kennypaul (4)
  4. collabot` (4)
  5. JasonHunt (2)
  6. cdonley (2)
  7. frankbrockners (1)
  8. jamil (1)
  9. AayushJio (1)
  10. Huabing_Zhao (1)
  11. ArthurBerezin (1)
  12. Susana (1)
  13. RannyHaiby (1)

Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.