SA2 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DJRA1.7.1
Title: DJRA1.7.1 Software Development Quality Control Report Doc. identifier: DJRA1.7.1_Software_Development_Quality_ControlReport_latest.odt
Author(s): Andrea Ceccanti Due date: __

Identification of the reviewer
Name: M.Alandes Pradillo, J.Cernak Affiliation: CERN, UPJS EMI Activity/External project or Institute: SA2

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link

General comments

Please find here the deliverable commented by Maria Alandes Pradillo and Jozef Cernak.

Note:Al comments are inside the documents. I hope it is ok for the author.

Answers to the reviewers comments

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Maria 19/11/10: I've read the last version of the document. I think Andrea has applied most of my comments, so great to see we agree with each other smile There's just one comment that hasn't been taken into account about explaining which measures QC is planning to take to make sure PTs start providing missing tests, test plans, etc. In any case, I don't have any major objection even if this is missing. I just mention it so Andrea can take it into account in the next report.

Andrea 23/11/10: actually my opinion is that actually the point is addressed in the report (sorry for not clarifying it before). Basically in the report is clarified that QC will report any anomalies (which include test availability not meeting the criteria defined by SA2) to the appropriate boards. The boards (PEB, PTB, ?) will then decide how to handle each case. Besides reporting there's not much that QC can do AFAIU at this time. The definition of procedures beyond reporting should anyway be defined by SA2, and be part of the SQAP (either the document or the guidelines). QC will then be able to implement the process as defined by SA2.

Maria 23/11/10: Accepts revision

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N Page Section Observations Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 2010-11-24 - unknown
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback