[OSLC] Possible new Working Group - Automation

Wed Jan 20 10:33:08 EST 2010

If the years of experience working on Rational Build Forge have taught me 
anything, it is to very careful in what name you choose for a topic like 
this specification. I have spent a lot of time over the last 3 years 
trying to explain how a product like Rational Build Forge is bigger than 
"build" (which most people think of as compilation/packaging) - expanding 
beyond a limiting name is extremely difficult. The product team has 
literally spent years trying to explain the difference between build and 
Build - one being the typical task a developer thinks of as compiling 
(build), the other being a greater automation flow that might contain 
static analysis, junit testing, and deployment of the results (Build).

If you take a look at the products that encompass the Rational Software 
Delivery Automation segment, we are a lot more than just Build and 
Deployment - we cover automated code analysis/security analysis, generic 
automation (including but not limited to build), and 
WebSphere-specific/Middleware-specific automation (installation, 
configuration, and deployment). I think that if we really try to narrow 
the scope in the naming of this work group, we will be sorry because it 
may not even fit our needs in the SDA business segment.

While I agree that we do not want to try to boil the ocean, I think we 
need to keep that naming broad enough to cover the scenarios that we will 
desire be a part of the 2.0 and future versions of the specification. I 
think that pigeon-holing this workgroup into the Build area by naming 
would be like pigeon-holing the CM folks by naming their workgroup 
"defects."

I think as we flush out the design in this area there will be a couple 
areas that need to be covered in the automation specification:
        1. Automation "Step" providers - tools that provide a service that 
could be automated
        2. The ability to query automation projects, run automation 
projects, schedule automation projects, and get the results of an 
automation project run

I think we want to be careful since this "Automation" area will bridge and 
be useful to the Rational Software Delivery Automation products as well as 
some of the Quality Management products/features (like Test Lab Manager) 
as they integrate with Change Management, Source Control Management, Asset 
Management, and other areas.

Since the development of a specification is scenario based and I do not 
feel that the 1.0 version of the specification could possibly cover all of 
the different scenarios, I suggest that we choose a couple of scenarios to 
focus on for the initial revision and then continue to add to it over 
time. I think having different workgroups for Build, Deploy, Analyze, etc. 
for the different scenarios over time will lead to less consistency in the 
overall integration areas.

Regards,
David
_________________________________________________________________
david brauneis | ibm rational automation framework for websphere chief 
architect
email: brauneis at us.ibm.com | phone: 919-254-9935 | mobile: 919-656-0874

From:
Michael Hüttermann <michael at huettermann.net>
To:
community at open-services.net
Date:
01/16/2010 12:53 PM
Subject:
[OSLC]  Possible new Working Group - Automation
Sent by:
community-bounces at open-services.net

Hello,

I would like to join this group and help working on that.

I also like "Build and Deployment" more, because you can automate pretty
everything, not only build and deployment. In practice, often also
"configuration" is interfacing build/deploy. Maybe it could be also
included into this group, it can be handled as a totally separate
discipline too though.

Thank you.

Best regards
Michael

--
michael at huettermann.net
http://huettermann.net

I agree with Samit's concern, and I agree that "Build and Deployment"
would be an excellent name.

Cheers,
Geoff

From:
Samit Mehta/San Francisco/IBM at IBMUS
To:
community at open-services.net
Date:
01/13/2010 11:01 AM
Subject:
Re: [OSLC] Possible new Working Group - Automation
Sent by:
community-bounces at open-services.net

My two cents...

Automation sounds very generic and up till now the groups have been very
specific around particular software delivery discipline.  I would suggest
calling it a "Build and Deployment" workgroup.

I completely support the need for such a group - it would definitely fill
a crucial gap in the ongoing OSLC working groups.

---------------------------------------------------------
Samit Mehta
IBM Rational Software - Business Development

Ready for IBM Rational software program:
http://www.ibm.com/isv/rational/readyfor.html
Ready for IBM Rational software Plug-in Central:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/downloads/ready.html

Scott Bosworth/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
Sent by: community-bounces at open-services.net
01/13/2010 08:37 AM

To
community at open-services.net
cc

Subject
Re: [OSLC] Possible new Working Group - Automation

Hi David, you've taken the right first step in proposing the new working
group here ( see
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcWorkgroupPrinciplesandBestPractices

- How are workgroups formed?). I'd like to open it up for comment over the
next week or so to the community on this maillist. Based on that feedback
and assuming there is general encouragement to proceed, the next step
would be to author an AutomationHome wiki page that fleshes out additional
proposed details of the workgroup as outlined in the Best Practices topic,
and then consultation with other Workgroup leads to ensure we wouldn't be
introducing duplicative or overlapping efforts.

As far as the proposal itself, my two cents are that this seems to be a
good topic and in fact one that would fill a gap that has come up in other
workgroups. The SCM and Asset Management workgroups both have integration
scenarios with Automation (Build) systems, and if I recall correctly, some
of the SCM scenarios were deferred because they required the definition of
Build services which had no catcher at the time. Also, there was some
early interest in Quality Management around test automation, though that
was tabled in favor of other scenarios.

Other feedback for David?

Thanks...Scott

Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | bosworth at us.ibm.com |
919.486.2197(w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)

David N Brauneis---01/12/2010 08:25:16 PM---Since I am new to
participating in the Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC)
community, I was unsure how new Working

From:

David N Brauneis/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS

To:

community at open-services.net

Date:

01/12/2010 08:25 PM

Subject:

[OSLC] Possible new Working Group - Automation

Since I am new to participating in the Open Services for Lifecycle
Collaboration (OSLC) community, I was unsure how new Working Groups
(topics) are proposed or initiated but would like to propose a new Working
Group (topic) focused on Automation. Automation is a best practice and an
important aspect of the software development and delivery lifecycle which
spans the different stages - including multiple technologies (compilers,
languages, scripts, platforms, etc...) and activities(compilation,
analysis, packaging, deployment, etc..). Automation provides the
capability to eliminate manual handoffs between the different disciplines
in the software development and delivery lifecycle as well as
traceability.

Initially, I think that the Working Group (topic) could focus on the a
couple of scenarios:
1. Build - automated compilation and packaging of code
2. Deployment - automated delivery/installation of build output

Regards,
David
________

_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/community_open-services.net/attachments/20100120/af1dd3cd/attachment-0003.html>