Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D4.2.3
Title: DSA2.2.3 QA Tools Documentation Doc. identifier: EMI-DSA2.2.3-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): Andres Abad Rodriguez Due date: 29/02/12

Identification of the reviewer
Name: J. K. Nilsen Affiliation: UIO EMI Activity/External project or Institute: JRA1

Review date mm/dd/yyyy
Author(s) revision date mm/dd/yyyy
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

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

General comments

05/03/02
- From sections 10 and 12 I get the impression that Debian 6 is now stable and fully supported in ETICS. Yet, there are clearly problems with EMI 2 builds for Debian 6. This discrepancy should be explained in this deliverable.
- To me it would perhaps make more sense if DSA2.2.3 was a separate doc as it is not at all clear from the document that it is just an update of DSA2.2.2. It could be our friends in Brussels would prefer a 7 pages deliverable over a 71 pages deliverable with 64 pages repetition. At the very least, the executive summary should be extended as described in the 'Periodically Updated Deliverables Procedure' (and also section 1.2 'Document organisation' should be updated).

Specific comments are in the attached tracked doc.

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

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 and Replies Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    
2          
3          
4          

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: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2012-03-05 - 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