OpenNCP - Strategic Release Plan

15 Mar 08:30 to  09:30  CET

Work RoadMap

1º Sprint: 28Jan > 8 Fev (2 weeks) > Completed
2º Sprint: 11Fev > 22Fev (2 weeks) > Completed
3º Sprint: 25Fev > 8Mar (2 weeks) > Completed
4º Sprint: 11Mar > 22Mar (2 weeks) > WE ARE HERE (<- both weeks, or perhaps just the last week could be the code freeze?)
- Release date: 25March (Monday) > OpenNCP 2.0.0
-- Release Notes

Agenda

1. Release Management Plan
2. QA Process - Team
3. Development Status

Location

Skype: skype: steen.manniche (if Steen not available: sirLicman)

Participants:

Aarne Roosi <Aarne.Roosi@affecto.com>,
Alexander Berler <a.berler@gnomon.com.gr>,
Anders Nyström <Anders.Nystrom@apotekensservice.se>,
Arnaud Gaudinat <arnaud.gaudinat@hesge.ch>,  
Fredrik Dahlman <fredrik.dahlman@cag.se>,
Gareth Woodham <Gareth.Woodham@apotekensservice.se>,
Gergely Heja <heja.gergely@eski.hu>,
Giorgio Cangioli <giorgio.cangioli@gmail.com>
Ivo Pinheiro <ivo.pinheiro@iuz.pt>,
Konstantin Hypponen <konstantin.hypponen@kela.fi>,
Kostas Karkaletsis <k.karkaletsis@gnomon.com.gr>,
Licinio Mano <licinio.mano@iuz.pt>,
Marcello Melgara <Marcello.Melgara@cnt.lispa.it>,
Mate Beštek <mate.bestek@gmail.com>
Marcelo Fonseca <marcelo.fonseca@iuz.pt>,
Mika Myllyvirta <mika.myllyvirta@kela.fi>,
Mindaugas Ajauskas <mindaugas.ajauskas@lispa.it>,
Norbert Repas <norbert.repas@elga.gv.at>,
Patrick Ruch <Patrick.Ruch@unige.ch>,
Tomaz Cebular <Tomaz.Cebular@ivz-rs.si>
Steen Manniche <STMA@ssi.dk>,
Stefan Gustafsson <stefan.gustafsson@callistaenterprise.se>,
Stéphane Spahni <stephane.spahni@hcuge.ch>,

MEETING NOTES

1. Release Management Plan (2 versions vs 1 version)

[Marcello Mel]

• We are few in the OpenNCP Community
• We should not proliferate technical solutions
• We should not start something call 2.x and maintain something call 1.x.
• 2.0.0 should be fully compliant with the the 1.x.x
• Work for sustainability, to many branches will be difficult to maintain in the future.
• Witch are the audit messages incompatibilities?
  • Should we rise the issue in order to avoid the incompatibilities?
• Agrees with functionality/interfaces without audit logging BUT we MUST raise the incompatibilities to the Marcello Melgara

[Licinio]

• Why and what where the reasons for 2.x.x breaks 1.x.x

[Konstantin]

• Incompatibilities
  • Specifications concerning audit messages are incompatible;
  • It does not affect semantic interoperability or other interoperability dimensions.
  • ATNA changes?? not yet stable.

[Steen]

• Agrees with konstantin
• Thinks: we could just skip the audit logging and focus in interfaces and functionality;

[Fonseca]

• Functional changes are not to big, so it may be possible to merge branches.

[Next Steps]

• 1st: Licinio > 3 lines email to raise the question to TPM: AA-32 - Getting issue details... STATUS , in order to put it in the risk assessment sheet.
  • TPM and NEPC
  • Risk in software development incompatibilities;
  • Risk of stopping pilots already in operation;
• 2nd: Prepare a WikiPage about mitigation plan regarding version merging;
• Current Release plan: Maintaining legacy branches (aka the 1.1.n vs. 2.x shootout)

2. QA Process - Team

[Gareth]

In the OpenNCP development project we lack a dedicated test team.  Normally there would be test specialists who do test planning and conduct system tests during a sprint.  This is followed by acceptance test when the software goes through a cycle of QA and bug fixing.  I’ve always thought it strange that we don’t follow this practice

• OpenNCP 1.1.1 Release
  • Longer Code Freeze > for Quality Assurance
  • Norbert, Stéphane
  • Konstantin: More unit tests, less regression test;

3. Development Status

• HCER-Client:
  
  • Konstantin: meeting: request to GNOMON for GUI implementation > that Marcello is checking with Gnomon
  • Marcello: negotiation with Gnomon; risk of stop the development of HCER tool - negotiation with PMT and project coordinator;
  • Marcello: conversation with Gnomon regarding LRT and MTC, to manage effort;
  • Konstantin: CDA Specifications and content are clear;
• HCER-Server:
  • The implementation is ready, and can be committed;
    • DON'T include AUDIT messages, because they can break some  
  • Changes are been committed to the development
  • Ready for integration with the HCER-Client.
  • Fonseca: add some comments in the client connector -share them;
• PAC:
  • Key task: Adjust Server side to support new assertions:
    • We can now accomplish task when we have resources available.
• OpenNCP
  • Portal, TM and TSAM: for sustainability, SHOULD be ready for improvement without of the initial providers.
    • Steen already done improvements in the past and ask for review for the initial  providers.
    • BUT:

NEXT Steps