Review of SCMP deliverable

[MarcBehrens]

Within the governance working package (WP1) the Software Configuration Management Plan as part of the QA-Plan is defined based mainly on the IEEE 828-2005.

Please review the current deliverable OETCS/WP1/D1.3 | Soware Configuration Management Plan

The review is open until 05.11.2015.

Document under review:

Type	Name	due	pdf	source
D1.3	Sofware Configuration Management Plan	revision Oct-2015	pdf	source

Role	Partner
Product Owner	@Faustco
Review Team	@KlausRuedigerHase @janWelte @marcbehrens @MariellePetitDoche @jensgerlach @UweSteinkeFromSiemens @AbdelnasirMohamed
Key Customers WP1	@KlausRuedigerHase @mahlmann
Key Customers WP3	@BerndHekele @BaseliyosJacob
Key Customers WP4 VnV-plan	@HardiHungar
Key Customers WP5	@openETCS/demonstrator-commiter
Key Customers WP7	@jastram

The role of the key customers is to guarantee completeness, accuracy and validity of the contents of a document.

Please contribute to the review according to the QA- Review Process.

@openETCS/governance-committer

Please mention #114 within your issue or contribute with a pull request to the document itself.

[janWelte]

Review Comments for "Software Configuration Management Plan" by Jürgen Weiss and Peer Jacobsen October 29, 2015

Review Comments by Jan Welte (TU-BS)

Main Points

• [ ] p vii / "the delivery plan" should be referenced with a document
• [ ] p vii / "If this plan is supposed to provide a better control of the different artifacts." this section should clearly state this fact
• [ ] p vii / "the review from WP5 would provide the correct feedback. In the following the review items indicated as still open should be reviewed by WP5 teams with indication of preferred solution." which review items? Please give an unique reference r
• [ ] p xii / Interface control not represented in Figure 1; relations between activities in figure 1 not clearly represented
• [ ] p xii / In general it is right that development outputs and used tools (as well as their relations) have to be tracked, but in openETCS we should just ensure that the end of the project is a consistent baseline
• [ ] p xxii / Interface Control - the design plan should list of process how interfaces as part of the design are under control. As we do not use a single interface document, it should be part of the design releases for the CIs
• [ ] p xxiii / For openETCS one document for all used vendor products should be part of the release
• [ ] p xxv / QA Plan and design documents should list sources and their baseline

Minor Points

• [ ] p vii / "called SCADE Model" is a very broad name absolutely, maybe here we should at least call it openETCS SCADE model
• [ ] p vii / "responsibilities reference see [1]." grammar incorrect
• [ ] p vii / "To the purpose of a traceable neutralization and abstraction a vendor independent API concept was adopted and In later phase, where platform specific issue are expected it is recommended to implement the configuration management Possibly a SCMP and CI register could support team(s) working on the applications demonstrators." punctuation is missing and sentences are unclear
• [ ] p vii / "... and maybe even as an indication for later use of the artifacts outside from current OpenEtcs project." grammar incorrect
• [ ] p vii / Tables 2 and 3 should not excide the limit of the margin (use size definition for columns in latex)
• [ ] p viii / central glossary exists, but it should be checked if specific abbreviations are used in this document as it has been done
• [ ] p i x / Table 5 incorrect use of hline
• [ ] p xx / "srpint" typo sprint

[MarcBehrens]

Review is closed and waiting for last review comments by @KlausRuedigerHase to be posted.