Date: Thursday, 03 November 2011
Time: 1:00 PM Eastern US (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate)
The Automation meetings alternate times each meeting to accomodate the global team.
Agenda
* Reoccurring agenda items:
* Main agenda items:
- Continue review of the automation execution scenario
- Report to workgroup on artifact discussion (Automation Request/Result vs single AutomationJob? )
- DavidBrauneis, CharlesRankin, LucasPanjer and MichaelFiedler met to discuss
- Summary
- Some existing implementations represent the concepts with 1 artifact, some with 2
- 2 artifacts provides the most flexibility
- implementations with only 1 artifact internally can represent the information in that artifact as 2 separate OSLC artifacts, the request and result.
- keep the request as simple as possible. Minimal info to request an automation:
- state
- desired state (for cancel)
- input parameters required for automation execution
- link to result (when it becomes available)
- link to automation plan
- requester
- time requested
- possibly "how requested" (manual, scheduled, programmatically)
- originally, discussed this being transient. Now recommended persistent. Implementation may expose info available in 1..n places as 2 OSLC artifacts.
- Discuss Agent/Worker sub-scenario.
- Proposal to limit scenario to optional agent registration
- Value of a limited scenario
- Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development
- Previous Action Items:
- Next meetings:
- Discuss meeting time
- 17 November - Michael Fiedler will be out - volunteer to run the meeting?
Minutes
Attending: Michael Fiedler, Pete Steinfeld, Max Vohlken, Barys Dubauski, Pramod Chandoria, Thomas Spatzier, Robert Elves, Vaibhav Srivastava, John Arwe, Paul
McMahan? , Bala Rajaraman, Dan Berg, Rich Rakich, Scarlett Li
* Main topic of conversation was the
AutomatedBuildScenario
- Basic build scenario was straightforward - maps well to the generic AutomationExecutionScenario
- More emphasis in these scenarios on updating the automation result after execution completion than the test scenario
- many potential contributors of status (test, globalization, project management, etc) to the build result once it is in a completed state.
- discussion of whether these status updates should be captured with states or with a tagging mechanism
- the change management spec uses dc:subject as a simple tagging facility. Propose Automation does the same
- discussion of the "composition" build scenarios
- another example of chaining or orchestration of automations. Potentially very complex in the build case.
- workgroup agreed again that orchestration is beyond an initial specification. However, keeping these scenarios in mind is important. Automation results, in particular, must enable these scenarios.
- brief discussion on what might be needed in the Automation Plan to support this.
- Automation "execution type" is a possibility. Indicate sequential vs parallel execution
- Links to other Automation Plans are another possibility
* TODO: Dan Berg will help organize a deployment or
DevOps? scenario * TODO: Finish discussion on agent or worker registration
- This was briefly introduced - there are test scenarios for this. Are there others?
* TODO: Michael Fiedler will summarize the Automation Request/Result vs Automation Job investigation on the mailing list
* Workgroup administration
- Michael Fiedler will be out next week. Looking for a volunteer to run the meeting, or possibly cancel it.
Next meeting: Thursday, 17 November at 1 PM Eastern US time