Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DSA2.4
Title: Continuos Integration Testbeds Doc. identifier: EMI-DSA24-CDS???-QAReport-v0.7
Author(s): Danilo Dongiovanni Due date: 03.09.2010

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Morris Riedel Affiliation: Juelich Supercomputing Centre EMI Activity/External project or Institute: JRA1

Review date 2010-10-20
Author(s) revision date 2010/10/28 (first version), 2010/11/18 (second version)
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

General comments

  • The document is very comprehensive and good to read. A few cross-WP issues have been taken up and are started to be discussed via e-mails.

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

  • Here and there the document could benefit from illustrations (e.g. timelines, etc.).

Detailed comments on the content

Note for Reviewers: Please put you comments and changes in the Word document

The comments have been put in the word document using the track changes option of word.

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 Minor changes reported in the document

Page Section Observations Is Addressed?
1 9 1.6 Terminology was meant to give a quick reference on some terms or ideas exploited in the deliverable but not directly addressed by the document. Defining test procedure is part of testing guidelines (which are now quoted in the document). About WP, definition etc... I was asked not to give for grated the EU reviewer would open twikies to understand terms, so I just put the most frequently used. About PTs certifying themselves, you're right about the impression it can give,but for my understanding, certification is in charge of PT and I have the same impression. What are the Official steps after integration testing, if other PTs don't find a bug? (ex. last voms released is an example) Y
2 11 2 Partly rephrased to make it clearer. About dCache, added a phrase mentioning it. Not considered about 3 middlewares testbed also cause it was not represented in SA2 WP by any partner. On a technical level I agree it can be considered another middleware (but also in EMI homepage they talked about 3 middleware If I'm not mistaken). About taking off open issues from executive summary: I was told by SA2 leader to prompt them in the executive summary so that reviewer would pay attention on it. What should we do? Its ok - Y
3 12 3 About inputs to JRA1.7 Added paragraph 5.5 defining inputs expected from JRA1.7 Task. Y
4 12 3 Rephrased some points which were considered not clear, including generalizing glite voms example Y
5 13 3.2 About dCache: for the survey Gianni Pucciani was involved and he had experience about dCache testing too. For the Testbed, Patrick has been contacted and they provided the testbed which is currently integrated in the EMI testbed. Also Owen Synger participates to meetings. Y
6 14 3.2 -comment12 Explained better what was people concern about additional effort in testing and testbed Y
7 15 3.2 -comment 13 dCache resources put in evidence in the executive summary Y
8 15 3.2 -comment 14 Added details about why vnodes could be interesting Y
9 15 3.2 -comment 15 Rephrased Y
10 14 3.3.1 -comment 19 Actually discussion is ongoing with PEB on this… basically this was required by EGI, which now says it should be on us to find people… We’ll need to find out. Y
11 14 3.3.1 -comment 20 The point is mentioned in the quick reference. The main problem is that access policy depend on local sites (cnaf, cern, kosice MOU signing, sending ID cards etc etc….) so granting access to everybody is complicated. It was also suggested to share info in other way, but we’ll see PT reactions on this. Y
12 19 4.2 – comment 22 rephrased to explain, I was referring to resources not effort Y
13 19 4.2 – comment 23/24 rephrased to explain (with participant sites I mean cern, cnaf, kosice, desy., juelich: those providing resources Y
14 26 5.2 – comment 27/28 added lines as requested Y
15 26 5.2 – comment 29 issue reported to PEB, I think CERN will take care of UI , don’t know about LSF,,, PTB statement, solved, Y
16 29 6 – comment 30 About the timeline for evolution: those are generic phases which I somehow expect to bring new challenges for the testbed, but I have no clear idea about what the actual timeline could be, so it is difficult for me to formulate it in graphical form or putting project months there understandable, Y
17 29 6 – comment 30 About the timeline for evolution: those are generic phases which I somehow expect to bring new challenges for the testbed, but I have no clear idea about what the actual timeline could be, so it is difficult for me to formulate it in graphical form or putting project months there understandable, Y
18 30 7 – comment 31->35 Added lines and reference to the emi coverage table provided in the testbed twiki, mapping EMI products from technical plan into testbed resources Y
19 33 7.2 – comment 36 I made the twiki more user friendly with sections addressing same points Y

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: r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r6 - 2010-12-03 - MorrisRiedelExCern
 
    • 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