#opnfv-release: OPNFV Release
Meeting started by dmcbride at 15:00:55 UTC
(full logs).
Meeting summary
- roll call (dmcbride, 15:01:13)
- David McBride (dmcbride,
15:01:18)
- Uli (uli-k,
15:04:33)
- https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/285662629
(dmcbride,
15:05:02)
- Sofia Wallin (sofiawallin_,
15:06:00)
- Tim Rozet (trozet,
15:06:23)
- Greg E (Greg_E_,
15:06:33)
- Frank Brockners (frankbrockners,
15:06:45)
- Bryan Sullivan (bryan_att,
15:08:41)
- Mllestone 10 (dmcbride, 15:12:28)
- preliminary documentation requirement at MS6
was only partially successful (dmcbride,
15:13:44)
- sofiawallin_ says that we still need
clarification around roles and requirements (dmcbride,
15:14:05)
- ACTION: sofiawallin_
to add topics to docs meeting for doc requirements and release
roles (dmcbride,
15:20:16)
- Maryam pointed out that it doesn't make sense
to have JIRA ms before docs ms, since JIRA are often associated with
JIRA (dmcbride,
15:21:43)
- baremetal vs virtual deployment (dmcbride, 15:24:17)
- frankbrockners says that we've had a
requirement since Arno to deploy to baremetal (dmcbride,
15:25:45)
- bryan_att says that baremetal should be the
goal (dmcbride,
15:26:33)
- Greg_E_ points out that there is a resource
issue. Do we have sufficient resources to deploy to
baremetal? (dmcbride,
15:28:17)
- trozet agrees that there is a resource issue.
Adding an additional pod for Euphrates. (dmcbride,
15:28:52)
- consensus that HA scenarios must deploy to
baremetal to qualify for release (dmcbride,
15:31:50)
- release noha, based on successful release of ha? (dmcbride, 15:34:51)
- noha scenarios should be tested in virtual, as
a minimum requirement (dmcbride,
15:36:31)
- bryan_att says that we should not set a
requirement around the number of nodes required for baremetal
deployment (dmcbride,
15:39:57)
- In particular let's be careful about setting
expectations that limit where we can take NFV platforms in the
future, e.g. highly optimized edge deployments that may take 1-2
nodes or even exist as a virtual deploy in a single node, or on
low-power servers with a single NIC, in some edge whitebox server
resource. But let's discuss the usecases/options in (bryan_att,
15:42:42)
- minimum test requirements? (dmcbride, 15:43:48)
- dneary says that we should continue to have a
low bar for testing (dmcbride,
15:44:42)
- jose_lausuch would like to have some
requirements but agrees with having scenario owners make the
judgment about release (dmcbride,
15:45:51)
- experimental scenarios (dmcbride, 15:47:59)
- jose_lausuch says that we should support
experimental scenarios, as long as they are documented as such in
the release notes (dmcbride,
15:48:51)
- bryan_att says that experimentation is
important (dmcbride,
15:49:34)
- jmorgan1 asks about entry criteria for
experimental scenarios (dmcbride,
15:50:39)
- should we limit experimental scenarios to 1 or
2 releases? i.e., cannot go on forever as experimental.
(dmcbride,
15:51:27)
- release/license scanning (dmcbride, 15:56:00)
- informational only for Euphrates, but gating
for 'F' release (dmcbride,
15:56:21)
- https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=10294496
(jmorgan1,
16:00:46)
- CI Gate securoty link above (jmorgan1,
16:01:00)
Meeting ended at 20:56:55 UTC
(full logs).
Action items
- sofiawallin_ to add topics to docs meeting for doc requirements and release roles
Action items, by person
- sofiawallin_
- sofiawallin_ to add topics to docs meeting for doc requirements and release roles
People present (lines said)
- dmcbride (30)
- Greg_E_ (10)
- jmorgan1 (6)
- bryan_att (4)
- collabot (3)
- dneary (2)
- frankbrockners (1)
- sofiawallin_ (1)
- uli-k (1)
- trozet (1)
Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.