This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.
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:
    • 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
  • If there is time, discuss result contributions. See ResourceDefinitions.
  • Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development
  • Previous Action Items:
    • NA
  • Next meetings:
    • Discuss meeting time
    • 1 December

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Rich Rakich, Charles Rankin, Vaibhav Srivastava, Pramod Chandoria, Paul McMahan? , Bill Higgins, Petes Steinfeld, Barys Dubauski, Max Vohlken

* Discussion topic 1 was the review of Automation Request and Automation Result as two separate artifacts (vs Automation Job)

  • General consensus
  • Going forward, we will use these two artifacts in addition to Automation Plan and the as-yet undiscussed contributions
* Second topic splintered off from the first. Centered around whether the notions of composition and step ordering were in scope for V1
  • Agreement that the scenarios around composite execution are very important
  • Some disagreement around how much is in scope for V1
    • Agreement it is still an open issues
    • Many examples from build domain to illustrate importance of ordering. Simple result contributions may not suffice
    • MaxVohlken feels we may be missing a result container artifact
* Actor registration discussion
  • Similar to the second topic above, much of the discussion resolved around scope rather than the specifics of this scenario
  • Acknowledgement that the V1 spec needs to fit the in-scope V1 scenarios
  • Discussion around need to get initial implementations to find what is missing, what is too much
  • PaulMcMahan introduced actor registration as a means for setting an automation system in motion
* Need to move into spec authoring mode
  • We still have scenarios to discuss (result contributions, DevOps? etc)
  • In parallel, need to start spec authoring. CharlesRankin has volunteered to help. Others interested, contact MichaelFiedler.
  • Need to focus on resources and properties...what is inherited from OslcCore and what is unique to Automation.

* Next meeting: Thursday, 1 December at 10 AM Eastern US time

Topic revision: r2 - 21 Nov 2011 - 16:49:26 - MichaelFiedler
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback