Review Tracking

  • 15/11/10 - v4 sent to SA1, SA2, PEB for review: (PDF)(DOC); review deadline 24/11
  • 21/11/10 - F. Giacomini sent (initial) review comments
  • 25/11/10 - B. Konya sent review
  • 28/11/10 - A. Di Meglio sent revised structure of EMI-1 Development and Test Plans (DOC)
  • Revised document following new template expected 17/12
  • 17/12/10 - v0.4 sent by M. Riedel
  • 06/01/11 - v0.4 sent to F. Giacomini (SA1), M. Alandes (SA2), PEB for review; deadline 14/01
  • 24/01/11 - Reminder sent to reviewers
  • 24/01/11 - SA1, SA2 sent review
  • Revised document taking SA1 and SA2 review comments into account expected 28/01
  • From M. Riedel: Expect revised document by 02/02
  • From M. Riedel: Expect revised document by 07/02
  • 07/02/11 - v0.5 sent by M. Riedel.

All, first of all: Thanks for taking the time for the reviews that I read with much interest.

I uploaded another version [1] of this non-DOW document on the wiki for a more thorough discussion at the PEB F2F (document audience, scope, content, etc.) in order to have a better common understanding towards the creation of the EMI-2 and EMI-3 plans that will be much more complex.

In the meanwhile, I took the detailed review comments of Francesco, AlbertoA and Jozef into account and responded on the wiki to each of your points. Please have a look.

After a short e-mail discussion with thanks to Francesco I have added some details in the implementation sections of the document which I guess seems to be common practice in gLite developments: You describe how to implement it exactly - not just the 'what'.

Just for your understanding of my initial difficulties with this then: While I see some merit in providing such low-level details in technical publications, I have to state that exactly this would be not the UNICORE way of doing it in a development plan.

Having such a low-level technical plan that "tells the developers how to do it" is not common practice in the UNICORE community. It seems like a technical paper writing (before the technology is implemented) by some managerial person that overlooks the developments and not codes himself...?!

One example: I would be the very last one to tell Bernd or Björn (UNICORE developers) in a plan "how" to implement things - I might tell "what" to do and which results are expected (previous development plan) and then the developer, of course, have the best knowledge "how" to implement it and which components/external packages might be needed, problems that might come up (duplicate port usage, backwards compatibility questions, production impact, etc.), etc.

However, this document exercise was perhaps another way of understanding our different communities and common practice a bit better. So I'm looking forward to the next versions as my feedback gets more concrete now.

Finally, in understanding the different histories of us a little bit better, I'm very open to go even more into details in this EMI-1 plan and the upcoming EMI-2, EMI-3 plans if the reviewers think that is useful.

I even like to write about it and would offer an architecture diagram per component to understand the technical solution in more detail, so no problem if it is this level of detail you would like to see to get the document in a better shape and accepted.

Of course, any other fruitful comment would be welcome too.

Thanks, Morris

  • Pending SA1, SA2 approval due 16/02
  • 28/02/11 - Urgent reminder sent to SA1, SA2
  • 28/02/11 - F. Giacomini accepts v0.5
  • 04/03/11 - Reminder sent to SA2
  • 07/03/11 - J. Cernak sent additional comments, see SA2 review form
  • 07/03/11 - Reminder sent to A. Aimar (SA2) for additional comments
  • 14/03/11 - Second reminder sent to A. Aimar
  • No additional comments from SA2.
  • Pending revision from M. Riedel due 18/03
  • Following request from M. Riedel, deadline extended to 25/03


-- FloridaEstrella - 15-Nov-2010

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Unknown file formatmpp 2010-12-17_DevTestPlan_MRi_v0.4.mpp r1 manage 1121.0 K 2010-12-17 - 23:17 MorrisRiedelExCern Proposal for 3rd revision after major structure change (MS Project file).
Microsoft Word filedoc 2010-12-17_EMI_1_Development_Test_Plan-v0.4_MRi_.doc r1 manage 644.0 K 2010-12-17 - 23:16 MorrisRiedelExCern v0.4 for review
Microsoft Word filedoc 2010-12-17_EMI_1_Development_Test_Plan-v0.4_MRi_fg1.doc r1 manage 644.0 K 2011-01-24 - 15:51 FrancescoGiacomini F. Giacomini's Review
Microsoft Word filedoc 2011-02-07_EMI_1_Development_Test_Plan-v0.5_MRi_.doc r1 manage 648.0 K 2011-02-07 - 21:38 MorrisRiedelExCern Integrated feedback from Francesco, AlbertoA, and Jozef
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r30 < r29 < r28 < r27 < r26 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r30 - 2011-03-18 - 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 &© 2008-2021 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback