1. WLCG Software Lifecycle First ideas for a post EMI approach 0

2. Basic Concepts Use open, widely used process for integration – EPEL repository and process as integration point https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi_Guide – test repository for staged rollout using test component against production repository – WLCG repo for non EPEL compliant packages – Alternative paths for middleware clients (tarball, CERNVMfs) EPEL derived Product Teams operate independently – Software repositories during development – Build tools ( most use Fedora tools ( mock etc.)) – Test tools for unit and system tests – Fine grained bug and requirement tracking Production readiness on scale can be only verified in production – Pilots and Managed Staged Rollout As little central coordination as possible 1

3. What needs to be coordinated? High level bug tracking (GGUS) High level requirement tracking ( GGUS ) – requirement prioritization ( PreGDB twice a year, WLCG-MB )  - Roadmaps – for requirement implementation – decommissioning of components, interfaces and APIs – move to new OS versions Middleware Configuration ( TEG OPS WG5 ) Middleware Deployment ( TEG OPS WG5 ) – this covers Pilots and Staged Rollout Release announcement and documentation – who, what, when – Could be done via the WLCG-T1-Service Coordination Meeting documented in an extended WLCGBaselineServices Twiki page 2

4. Roadmaps for: Requirement implementation – Part of Pre/GDB and WLCG-MB – Needs to be prepared well in advance Decommissioning of components, interfaces, APIs – same as now: Pre/GDB discussions, MB decisions Move to new OS versions – same as now: Pre/GDB discussions, MB decisions Currently this is done independently for ARC, gLite and the OSG middleware stack – maybe this could be coordinated more closely 3

5. Middleware Configuration Complex problem – small sites profit from a simple tool YAIM or RPM post install scripts – large sites use configuration management tools Quattor, Puppet, cfengine.....  no generic support possible need highly specific configuration Less configuration would be great.... – but is not likely to happen overnight.... Probably a mixture between a simple tool and improved generic configuration guide is needed – Working Group??? 4

6. Middleware Deployment Based on EPEL + WLCG repository – YUM as a tool Clients also provided in a form for distribution with the application software (Application Area, tarball,..) – this is only the case for gLite clients, ARC and OSG managed independently Pilot services are negotiated between Product Teams, Sites and Experiments ( no central coordination(needed) ) Staged Rollout needs to be managed  – coverage of experiment/service/major site config. – EMI WN is a good example – Site and experiment participation is crucial  can’t rely on ad hoc agreements, needs formal commitment needs follow-up and coordination – Could be part of the mandate of an WLCG Operations Team – Small WG needed to agree on the details 5

7. Some Detailed Questions Rollback with a roll forward repository? – For RPM based distributions via RPM Epoch V1.2 is in production (epoch 0) V1.3 released and generates an issue V1.2 re-released with epoch set to 1 – For RPM V1.2 epoch 1 is then “newer” than 1.3 Non-backward compatible changes? – Introduced in parallel along production versions Like: SRM, GLUE – Support for legacy service/API is retired as any middleware component 6

8. General Questions Is there a need for a common approach for staged rollout for all middleware? 7