Version 10 (modified by nicolasmartin, 4 years ago) (diff)

ROBUST-10 Evolution of Collaborative Development Environment

This is the color code for the fulfilment of this form:

PI(S)

Previewer(s)

Reviewer(s)


The PI is responsible to closely follow the progress of the action, and especially to contact NEMO project manager if the delay on preview (or review) are longer than the 2 weeks expected.

Abstract

This section should be completed before starting to develop the code, in order to find agreement on the method beforehand.

Details

Action

PI(S)

Ticket

#1679

Branch

branches/2016/dev_r${FORK_REVISION}_ROBUSTNESS-10_CDE

Previewer(s)

Reviewer(s)

To enabling the !ticket and the source links related to your action, edit the form like a ordinary wiki page to hardcode them inside the table

Description

Implementation

Reference manual updates

Updated on 06/30/2016 21:18:04 by nicolasmartin

Once the PI has completed this section, he should send a mail to the previewer(s) asking them to preview the work within two weeks.

Preview

Preview discussions

Comments from Previewer 1: Andrew Coward:

The task description and background context is well explained and the implementation plan appears to be well formulated. However, this is a difficult plan for system team officers to preview since we are, at best, 'knowledgable users' of the Source Code Management and TRAC systems and we have little experience of installing and configuring them. I am happy to rely on Nicolas' expertise for that but it is clear that we must all contribute to content and design decisions at some stages. The plan, as written, lacks clarity as to when critical points will be reached that require collective effort. I suggest adding a Gantt chart with the best estimates of when tasks will be completed and showing when greater involvement from the system team may be necessary. This will help NEMO officers to schedule their commitments accordingly.

Is there an opportunity here to ensure that the new system is more compatible with FCM so that we can avoid all the 'property change' commits that plague the current system? Does anyone have ideas how to do that?

Also, it would be good to remove the reference manual PDF from any commits but have it rebuilt automatically if anything in DOC is changed. Can we add hook scripts to do that?

Comments from Previewer 2: Simona Flavoni:

I agree with the idea of removing moderation (less of work), but I've just a question. Nemo mailing list will disappear, so we will loose aid of users that sometimes answer to questions? or not? Or probably users will use intensively discussions to exchange informations by each other?

If all questions will be done with the creation of a ticket, and these tickets are visible only by nemo_st… that implies that only nemo_st members will answer to tickets?

Comments from Previewer 3: Clement Bricaud

I agree with the idea to simplify the web site and to gather all the others functionalities linked to the nemo developers and ST in the wiki. I am ok to remove the nemo@… and to transfer it in tickets and forum. all the tickets will be visible by all users ?

Since the preview step must be completed before the PI starts the coding, the previewer(s) answers are expected to be completed within the two weeks after the PI has sent his request.
For each question, an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to reach a "YES" answer for each of the following questions.

Questions Answer Comment
Does the previewer agree with the proposed methodology?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed flowchart and list of routines to be changed?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed new list of variables, including agreement with coding rules?
Does the previewer agree with the proposed summary of updates in reference manual?
… … …

Updated on 05/31/2016 10:41:42 by cbricaud

Once all "YES" have been reached, the PI can start the development into his development branch.

Tests

Once the development is done, the PI should complete this section below and ask the reviewers to start their review in the lower section.

Questions Answer Comment
Can this change be shown to produce expected impact? (if option activated)?
Can this change be shown to have a null impact? (if option not activated)
Detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated. Please indicate the configuration used for this test
Detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration)
Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: Are there no differences when activating the development?
If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
If some differences appear, is the !ticket describing in detail the impact this change will have on model configurations?
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
Are there significant changes in run time/memory?
… … …

Updated on 09/25/2020 18:54:36 by anonymous

Review

A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

Code changes and documentation

Question Answer Comment
Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at Preview step?
Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at Preview step?
If not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
Is the !ticket of development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
Are the reference manual tex files now updated following the proposed summary in preview section?
Is there a need for some documentation on the web pages (in addition to in-line and reference manual)?
If yes, please describe and ask PI. A yes answer must include all documentation available.
… … …

Review Summary
Is the review fully successful?

Updated on 09/25/2020 18:54:36 by anonymous

Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.