Hi David,
I think adding this as a topic for a community or architecture
call makes good sense. It definitely seems like an area where additional
refinement will help.
Tania, can you add this as a topic for either the architecture or
community call?
Cheers,
-Jason
From: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Whiteman
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:23 AM
To: Cosmos Dev
Subject: RE: [cosmos-dev] RE: Design process
Yes, I don't
think we had come up with a set process there before. In thinking about
this some more, I think I was just making up what it perhaps should be going
forward. :-)
In the past
we've had a big design review call for each iteration. During the call we
provided feedback to the designer, who would later go back to make adjustments
per the feedback. In most cases, we never had a 2nd review by anyone to
confirm that the corrected design was kosher. I'd be interested to know
how TPTP handled this process.
Perhaps this
would make for a good arch call or community call topic for us to settle on a
more explicit process, and as a result of that discussion, improve the dev
process wiki page.
David
---
David Whiteman | Tivoli Autonomic Computing
Eclipse COSMOS project committer | http://www.eclipse.org/cosmos/
david_whiteman@xxxxxxxxxx | 919-254-8224 | T/L 444-8224
Jason wrote on 05/19/2008 09:48:05 AM:
> Hi David,
>
> Sounds good. We will go through
the current process and offer any feedback. I
> think adding this level of detail to the required steps per iteration
section of
> the dev process wiki would help
>
>
http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_dev_process#Required_steps_per_iteration:
>
> In particular under item 1, bullet
three the statement reads roughly that … the
> community will review designs associated with ERs being considered for
an iteration.
>
> That made sense to me, but wasn't clear
from reading that bullet was who ultimately
> signs off on the design and the process for that signoff.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jason
