Release Management Process and Workflow.

21 Jan 2016 

Estimated: 15:00 to 16:00 CET.

Performed: 15:09 to : CET.

Agenda:

1. Infrastructure
   
2. Release Management Workflow 
   
3. Release 2.4.0
4. AOB
5. Next meetings 
   

Location:

• AdobeConnect:

http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/openncp/
Room Passcode:  Ask if necessary michele.foucart or markus.kalio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:
Test your connection: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html
Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat and Adobe Connect are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Participants:

Joao Cunha

Kostas Karkaletsis

Pier Luigi Miglioli

YacoubouY

S

Alexandre Santos

Meeting Notes:

1. Infrastructure: 
   1. Current Infrastructure:
      1. Since the current process is fine, this task force will not revolutionize the current way of working
      2. Current tools used: JIRA, Jenkins, Artifact repository on join -up...
         1. EC will need admin credentials for all tools and in particular administration rights of Bitbucket as responsible of the releases
         2. Who are the current admin in Bitbucket?
            1. Alexandre Santos, Licinio Kustra ManoRui Alves (Unlicensed), Massimiliano Masi etc. Admin can create users etc. Rights are then defined per repository... 
            2. There are 4 types of administration... so it is possible to delete access
            3. We should have a list of developers committing code to the repository. Commit code => access to develop branch only, while admin DG SANTE have access to the main branch to be the only one being able to make a new release
            4. Other possible scenario: development of a new feature or bug.
            5. Either pull request to develop, all the developpers have rights to push dev & then only DG SANTE has the auto to put on master branch and make the release. Or developers only have possibility to develop on the branch and then make a pull request? Kostas Karkaletsis First approach looks clearer
               1. first approach more appropriate for a small team working on the same project, within same company. Simpler, faster. But everybody from the team having access to the development branch has to know the formatting etc. We have more control on what is done. Does not exclude someone who wants to develop and then to make a pull request?
                  1. First approach fits well to our team & way of working etc (developers are identified, know the project etc.). but we could add some formalization in term of formatting etc. => Commit guidelines?
               2. Second one (e.g Github) is more appropriate in bigger team, developments on Internet. Using pull request: someone from Matsre team has to read all the source code & if the source code complies, formatting decided etc.
               3. Common agreement: we keep the first option and if issues and/orf lot of new developers join then we canstill move to the second option. Escecially also for restrictions of second could imply (e.g absence of the main developper etc.)
                  
                  
         1. What are the mandatory artefacts? into Join-up that will need to be migrated. Restriction from the group id... Kostas Karkaletsis will have a look at the Jenkins library and come back
            
            
   2. eHealth CEF Infrastructure:
   3. Migrate ressource from Atlassian to the one provided by EC, which is using the same tools, also publicly open and hosted within the Commission
   4. Before export we will have to clean, same for Bitbucket. It will work in the same way.
   5. CEF infra is for purpose of open source projects
   6. We don't know timeline yet since we don't know when environments will be available
   7. Migration:
      1. Tools: Jenkins is not supported by the EC. So for Jenkins we cannot ask for support etc. So we'll try to migrate from Jenkins to Bamboo and YacoubouY will be responsible for the migration.
      •  Sonar? Giving good metrics regarding the quality of the source code. It is used by Kostas Karkaletsis and is a very useful tool. S will see if this tool is supported by the Commission.

1. Release Management Workflow:
   1. Current Process:
      https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XQAYAw
      https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/x/OQCp
      
      Image Modified
   2. The current process is well defined and efficient, so no need to change.
   3. Unique way to format the code, what about using one file defining the formatting of code? NetBeans to Eclipse, vice versa?
       
      
2. Release 2.4.0
3. Joao Cunha and Heiko Zimmermann will test, then we can make the release.
4. Jerôme will be responsible for the release, with the help of Alexandre Santos
   
   1. Release date:
   2. Parent Project:
      1. Add a parent project controlling the dependencies of the release, will include client connector etc.
      2. Especially because there are more than 20 differents components in Bitbucket so it has the advantage to manage the dependences at one place.
         
5. AOB:
6. Next meetings:  

Next Steps: