[oslc-core] Email formatting style and plain text (was: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Request for review of OSLC Automation specification)
Steve K Speicher
sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Wed Jun 13 09:17:33 EDT 2012
Not weighing in on the conversation or picking on certain individuals
(just seeing this more and more), and wanted to point out what this HTML
formatted email conversation looks like in plain text in the archive
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/2012-June/000185.html
As important as these conversations are, it is important that we work to
keep a good record of them in a form that can be understood in the archive
and a broad class of email clients.
I recommend (for those Lotus Notes users and other similar tools) to reply
with "Internet-style history" and leave some trail of who made which
comments. You can also customize some of the responses by going to Lotus
Notes -> Preferences -> Mail -> Internet.
Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> From: David N Brauneis/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> To: Pramod K Chandoria <pchandor at in.ibm.com>,
> Cc: oslc-automation at open-services.net, oslc-core at open-services.net,
oslc-
> automation-bounces at open-services.net,
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 06/04/2012 06:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] [oslc-core] Request for review of OSLC
> Automation specification
> Sent by: oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net
>
> Pramod,
>
> See further responses/thoughts in bold red.
>
> Regards,
> David
> ____________________________________________________
> David Brauneis
> STSM, Rational Software Delivery Automation Chief Architect
> email: brauneis at us.ibm.com | phone: 720-395-5659 | mobile: 919-656-0874
>
>
>
> From: Pramod K Chandoria <pchandor at in.ibm.com>
> To: David N Brauneis/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> Cc: Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM at IBMUS, oslc-automation at open-
> services.net, oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net, oslc-core at open-
> services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 06/04/2012 02:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] [Oslc-Automation] Request for review of
OSLC
> Automation specification
>
>
>
> Thanks David for the answers,
> My answers inlined between <pchandor></pchandor>
>
> -|- Pramod Chandoria
>
>
>
> From: David N Brauneis <brauneis at us.ibm.com>
> To: Pramod K Chandoria/India/IBM at IBMIN
> Cc: Michael F Fiedler <fiedler at us.ibm.com>, oslc-automation at open-
> services.net, oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net, oslc-core at open-
> services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 06/03/2012 04:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] [Oslc-Automation] Request for review of
OSLC
> Automation specification
>
>
>
> Pramod,
>
> I have a couple of thoughts on what you have proposed, I have added them
inline in
> bold red.
>
> Regards,
> David
> ____________________________________________________
> David Brauneis
> STSM, Rational Software Delivery Automation Chief Architect
> email: brauneis at us.ibm.com | phone: 720-395-5659 | mobile: 919-656-0874
>
>
>
> From: Pramod K Chandoria <pchandor at in.ibm.com>
> To: Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM at IBMUS
> Cc: oslc-automation at open-services.net,
oslc-core at open-services.net,
> oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 06/02/2012 09:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] [Oslc-Automation] Request for review of
OSLC
> Automation specification
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
>
>
>
> I have few comments as mentioned below.
>
> Automation plan: Can we just call it Automation. Do we gain any meaning
with plan.
> I think that the whole topic of the working group is automation and
there
> are many things associated with it, I like keeping it as an automation
plan
> and have already started to use that terminology with customers (and it
> seems to resonate).
> <pchandor>I have no big concern here</pchandor>
>
> Automation plan: We don't have oslc_auto:automationType attribute.
Without
> this we can't distinguish whether Automation is for build, test,
deployment,
> cloud etc.. I think this needs to be typed. I actually do not agree with
an
> approach that types the automation, there are some automation plans that
> might perform one or more of those different types as a part of the
workflow
> (think a continuous integration or continuous delivery product - i.e.,
> DevOps)... How would you characterize those? Also, some automation
providers
> will exist that can support more than one type of automation and do not
need
> them to be separated. What do we gain by forcing this?
> <pchandor>I think when a AutomationPlan represents a group of
Automations
> (like TestSuite in RQM, workflow in DevOps), it might make sense to call
> them "complex" type. Consider a scenario like user is defining a
workflow in
> RTC, that when a build automation is completed, wants to run a Test
> Automation. When user will query automation from the automation provider
> (RQM), It would definitely like automation plan of 'test' type be listed
to
> choose from. Do we think this should be defined in service providers
name
> space?. I think having a type in spec will provide client hint about
what
> type of Automation plan it is.</pchandor> <dnb>I really think this is
> unnecessary, it is by choosing the automation plans from the provider
where
> this "hint" of what the automation plan might do. I think that the type
> would like end up being close to unique per automation provider which
kind
> of defeats the purpose. What about automation providers that can do some
> generic automation work, would it then be up to the Automation Provider
to
> change and require the end user to define the type of automation it is
from
> a list of categories. I do not see what the gain for the consumer is
here...
> If I ask RQM and it returns test, if I ask RTC and it returns build, and
if
> I ask RAF and it returns deployment (always in each of these cases) what
is
> the purpose?</dnb>
>
> Automaton Request: oslc_auto:state - Probably it's value can be defined
by
> specification, rather loosely relying on the provider. This will allows
> clients to write more predictable code rather writing specific code to
each
> provider. I think verdict domain can be different for different provider
but
> state of the Automation Request can be guided by specification across
all providers.
> I think is needed because most automation providers will have the
concepts
> of queued, started, running, paused, complete, etc.
> <pchandor>Exactly you answered my question here. Probably specifying (
> queued, started, running, paused, complete) states would be sufficient
> here.</pchandor>
>
> AutomationResult: oslc_auto:verdict is used for end result's verdict,
oslc_auto:state
> - I am not sure why this property is mandatory when verdict is already
> available. In RQM there is only one field for verdict, there is no other
> state for result. I am thinking this should not be one-many but
zero-many property.
> I thought this meant whether or not the automation executed successfully
or failed.
> <pchandor>If it's meaning is only for client to determine whether it was
> successful or not, then it should be of type of boolean? With type
being
> (anyType), what value we attain for the client. In that case client can
also
> determine same from the verdict.</pchandor> <dnb>I think there might be
a
> couple of more verdict states (I was simplifying it for the purposes of
> differentiating it from state - I think other possible verdicts might be
> "successful with warnings" or even "canceled."</dnb>
>
> Regards,
>
___________________________________________________________________________
>
> -|- Pramod K Chandoria
>
> Advisory Software Engineer
>
> IBM Rational, India Software Lab
>
> [image removed]
>
> Bangalore, India | +91-80-417-77045 | +91 99805 68253
>
> What's new in 4.0 RC0 | Ask Question in forum | Online Help | Download
RQM 4.0 RC0
>
> [image removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Michael F Fiedler <fiedler at us.ibm.com>
> To: oslc-automation at open-services.net,
oslc-core at open-services.net
> Date: 05/08/2012 07:49 PM
> Subject: [Oslc-Automation] Request for review of OSLC Automation
> specification
> Sent by: oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net
>
>
>
> The Automation workgroup continues to make progress on the specification
and
> is working to move towards convergence with several early
implementations
> beginning now.
>
> The workgroup would like to invite you to review the current draft [1]
of
> the specification. All comments are welcome. We would especially be
> interested in feedback from Core members and Automation members who have
not
> been in attendance lately.
>
> [1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AutoSpecificationV2
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> Michael Fiedler
> IBM Rational Software
> fiedler at us.ibm.com
> 919-254-4170_______________________________________________
> Oslc-Automation mailing list
> Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
>
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Automation mailing list
> Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
>
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
More information about the Oslc-Core
mailing list