Page Comparison

State

Description

Release Quality

Release Numbering

Deliverables / Exit Criteria

Proposal

Project doesn’t really exist yet, may not have real resources, but is proposed and is expected to be created due to business needs.

n/a

n/a

3.3.7.1 Incubation Review:

-    Name of the project is appropriate (no trademark issues etc.); Proposed repository name is all lower-case without any special characters [a checkmark]

-    Project contact name, company and email are defined and documented [presumably at least one proposer]

-    Description of the project goal and its purpose are defined [a checkmark – use the templates]

-    Scope and project plan are well defined [yes to scope, no to project plan]

-    Resources committed and available

-    Contributors identified

-    Initial list of committers identified (elected/proposed by initial contributors)

-    Meets Akraino TSC Policies [need to define what these are? – Bill to find out what these are – Jenny’s chasing down some language about this]

-    Proposal has been socialized with potentially interested or affected projects and/or parties (e.g. presented at Community Meeting)

-    Cross Project Dependencies (XPDs). In the case where a project will require changes in other projects and upstream dependencies, those projects are listed in the proposal, and a sponsoring developer in the project has been identified

-       Tools have been identified and discussed with relevant partners (Linux Foundation, IT). Once the project passes the review, the tools chain must be created within one week. Tools encompass Configuration Management, CI/CD, Code Review, Testing, Team Wiki, End Users documentation (not exhaustive).

Incubation

Project has resources, but is recognized to be in the early stages of development.

Alpha (MVP)

0.1 to 0.x

3.3.7.2 Maturity Review:

On a successful graduation the BP HW/SW package is deemed to be Beta-Quality and the BP moves to the Mature stage.

The collective TSC vote as defined in Akraino Technical Community Document#4.4.1TSCDecisionMakingProcess will be based on all the following set of checks being met:

• Validation lab check:

The BP project contributors have deployed and validated the BP in at least 2 community member validation labs or a community member validation lab and LF CD lab with the exact HW and SW configuration for which the maturity review is being requested. All validations labs are required to connect with Akraino LF CI. The environment should be reviewed and endorsed by the CI/CD Sub-Committee.

• Release inclusion check:

Successful participation in at least two Akraino release periods in the incubation stage [this implies that nothing will be Mature in Akraino R1 - however a PTL could request a maturity review anytime after R1 i.e. from 1st June onwards – TSC should confirm that’s what they want]

• SW quality/functional check:

The SW quality will be assessed as reaching beta according to :

• 1. Passing the mandatory set of test cases for all deployed layers using the tools and test set for each layer as defined by the Akraino Validation Framework Validation feature project (Akraino Blueprint Validation Framework) (after TSC approval). This will define minimum mandatory set of test that must be passed for each layer included in BP, plus
  2. Passing any additional test cases defined by the specific BP project as mandatory, plus
  3. Achieving the minimum Security requirements as defined by the Security subcommittee [Note - the mechanism of security testing / review has not been proposed / agreed]
     
     
• HW definition check:

Precise HW requirements and descriptions are defined and included in the BP's documentation (as used in both lab validations)

• Stability check

The project demonstrates stable output (code base, documents) within its history of releases in accordance with the release policy. [How practically will this be judged?]

• Upstream dependencies check:

Upstream dependencies must be clearly defined

[Does this need to be checked by Upstream committee or is a dependency statement in the released documentation sufficient?]

• Documentation check:

Documentation subcommittee to provide a recommendation on graduation, or if not with items requiring action/remedy.

• API check:

API subcommittee to provide a recommendation on graduation, or if not with items requiring actions/remedy.
[Note: details of what is required, if anything, needs to be defined by the API subcommittee]

• Community health check:

PTL should provide a summary of contributors and committers and companies and demonstrate growth -    Project is active and contributes to Akraino: The project demonstrates increasing number of commits and/or number of contributions across recent releases. Contributions are commits that have been to an Akraino repository project or related upstream project. Commit examples can be patches to update the requirements document of a project, code addition to an Akraino or upstream project repository, new additional test cases and so forth. [maybe create a template, or use something like Bitergia to get some consistent metrics coming into this review]