[i3eSW] Rechecking Fabio's comments

Melissa Wen
1 parent 532751ea
Showing 1 changed file with 24 additions and 17 deletions Show diff stats
ieeeSW/releaseEng3/IEEE_ThemeIssue_ReleaseEng_CD.md
 ---
-title: "Continuous Delivery: Building Trust in a Large-scale, Complex Government Organization"
+title: "Continuous Delivery: Building Trust in a Large-scale, complex government organization"
 papersize: a4
 geometry: "left=1in,right=1.5in"
 ---
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ __Fabio Kon__ is Full Professor of the Department of Computer Science of the
 University of São Paulo. (...) .His research interest areas are: (...). Contact
 him at fabio.kon@ime.usp.br.
+<!-- Fabio: Esse resumo está não usual porque ele não resume o que o artigo apresenta. Ele serve como uma motivação apenas. Mas talvez podemos deixar assim pra ver o que acontece -->
 ## Abstract
 For many software development teams, the first aspects that come to mind
@@ -46,7 +47,7 @@ overcome them.
 ## Introduction
 From 2014 to 2016, we were part of a team that worked on a thirty-month-long
-Brazilian government project  to modernize the Brazilian Public Software (SPB)
+Brazilian government project to modernize the Brazilian Public Software (SPB)
 portal (www.softwarepublico.gov.br) [1]. This project was a partnership between
 the Ministry of Planning, Budget, and Management and two public universities:
 University of Brasília and University of São Paulo.
@@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ development collaboration between universities and the Ministry staff involved,
 raising disbelief.
 Secondly, our team approached software deployment differently from the
-Ministry.  We believed frequent delivery is better for the project’s success.
+Ministry. We believed frequent delivery is better for the project’s success.
 In contrast, the Ministry is used to the idea of a single deployment at the end
 of the project, and neither their bureaucratic structure nor their technical
 expertise were conducive with this style of work. That ended up hampering the
@@ -122,8 +123,8 @@ technical issue we could tackle in the short term. As a result, we worked to
 deploy one version of the project onto our infrastructure and showed it to the
 government evaluators. This strategy proved them we could efficiently provide
 new features, fulfill their expectations regarding the delivery of the
-requirements, and incited them to demand the latest version to be deployed in
-the Ministry infrastructure. This efficiency generated more pressure on the IT
+requirements, and incited them to demand that the latest version be deployed in
+the Ministry infrastructure. This generated more pressure on the IT
 department responsible for the deployment routines. With each CD cycle, we
 gradually built a new relationship among all parties and, by the end of the
 project, we became active participants in the deploy operations.
@@ -146,12 +147,14 @@ practices, as presented in Figure 1. It started when new code arrived; and when
 it reach the production environment, we would restart the pipeline to release
 new versions.
+<!-- Fabio: Neste ponto eu já gostaria de ter uma ideia do tamanho do sistema [..] eu gostaria de ter outros números como linhas de código [x], quantidade de componentes[x], usuários desenvolvedores esperados[Temos acesso?], etc.-->
+
 ### Automated Tests
 Each integrated system had to be tested with its own test suite. This checking
 was not enough, however: we even had to test the platform as a whole. Given
 that the plugins also have their own test suites and these suites assume a
-double role as both plugin tests and as integration tests.  If any test suite
+double role as both plugin tests and as integration tests. If any test suite
 failed, by either a test error or coverage reduction below a certain threshold,
 the process stopped. Only when all tests passed, the pipeline proceeded to the
 step of release preparation.
@@ -172,9 +175,9 @@ this process, we started packaging.
 After creating a new tag for a system, DevOps team starts the packaging process.
 Packaging brings portability, simplifies deployment, and enables configuration
 and permission control. Our packaging software approach involves building
-separate packages for each system in three steps: writing the script for the
+separate packages for each system, in three steps: writing the script for the
 specific environment, building the package, and uploading it to a package
-repository. A set of scripts fully automated these steps. When all of them ran
+repository. A set of scripts fully automated these steps. When all them ran
 successfully, the new packages would be ready and available for our deployment
 scripts.
@@ -192,13 +195,13 @@ simplifying the deployment process.
 After a new SPB portal deployment in the VE, we used the environment to verify
 the integrity of the entire portal. In this step, Ministry staff also checked
 the new features, required changes and bug fixes. If they identified a problem,
-they would notify the developers via comments on the SPB portal's issue tracker,
+they would notify the developers via comments on the SPB portal issue tracker,
 prompting the team to fix it and restart the pipeline. Otherwise, we could move
 forward.
 ### Production Environment Deployment
-After the VE check, we could finally begin the deployment in the PE, with the
+After the VE check, we could finally begin the deployment in production, with the
 same configuration management tool, scripts, and package versions as in the VE.
 After the deploy was completed, both VE and PE were identical. At that point,
 new features and bug fixes were finally available to end users.
@@ -220,9 +223,9 @@ following additional benefits.
 CD helped strengthen trust in the relationship between developers and the
 Ministry staff. Before using CD, they could validate features developed only at
-the end of the release cycle, usually every four months.  With the
+the end of the release cycle, usually every four months. With the
 implementation of CD, intermediate and candidate versions became available,
-allowing them to perform small validations over time.  Constant monitoring of
+allowing them to perform small validations over time. Constant monitoring of
 the development work brought greater security to the Ministry leaders and
 improved the interactions with our team.
@@ -258,7 +261,7 @@ production environment.
 The CD pipeline performance depended on the synchronization between our
 development team and the Ministry staff: each party had to be prepared to take
-action as soon as the other concluded a given task.  Initially, the Ministry
+action as soon as the other concluded a given task. Initially, the Ministry
 staff did not contemplate this in their schedule which, combined with the
 bureaucracy in providing access to the PE (up to 3 days), resulted in
 significant delays in the validation of new features. The use of an explicit CD
@@ -277,7 +280,7 @@ learned.
 ### Build CD From Scratch
-Taking on the responsibility for implementing CD impacted the whole team.  Most
+Taking on the responsibility for implementing CD impacted the whole team. Most
 of our team members did not have CD know-how, and we had few working hours
 available to build the pipeline. The construction and maintenance of the CD
 process were made possible by the key decisions to:
@@ -295,15 +298,19 @@ process on-the-fly.
 ### Overcoming Mistrust
-Adopting an unfamiliar approach requires trust. Ministry staff, traditionally, expected and were prepared to validate and deploy a single deliverable. However, the steady growth of SPB complexity made large deliveries unsustainable. The CD approach was necessary. Therefore, we use the following approaches to made this new dynamic in the Ministry possible:
+Adopting an unfamiliar approach requires trust. Ministry staff, traditionally,
+expected and were prepared to validate and deploy a single deliverable. However,
+the steady growth of SPB complexity made large deliveries unsustainable. The CD
+approach was necessary. Therefore, we use the following approaches to made this
+new dynamic in the Ministry possible:
 1. _Demonstrate actual results, do not simply tell._ Initially, we did not have
 access to the Ministry infrastructure, so we created our own validation
-environment.  Thus, we were able to follow the CD pipeline until production
+environment. Thus, we were able to follow the CD pipeline until production
 deployment, when we faced two problems. First, our pace of intermediate
 deliveries to the government was faster than the deployment to production by
 the Ministry staff. Second, specific issues of the Ministry infrastructure made
-some validated features not work as expected in the PE.  That situation gave us
+some validated features not work as expected in the PE. That situation gave us
 arguments to negotiate access to the PE.
 2. _Make project management transparent and collaborative for government