You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Versioning of individual "elements" is required for requirements only. Is that correct?
Todays implementation forces all elements to have a version, which does not match the process requirement.
Especially this does not make a lot of sense for automatically generated reports like the module verification report? As the report is assembled on the fly, and no diff appears in reviews, there is nothing that can be reviewed within a review. As the report includes pretty much everything in a specific repository, every change leads to a version increase?
Req - yes, e.g. to check if linked req, arch, IF, SA may be affected
AoU - yes, e.g. to check if linked req, comp may be affected (is already in req process?)
Arch - yes, e.g. to check if linked SA may be affected
Interface - yes, e.g. to check if the implementing/using comp are affected
SafetyAnalysis - no, is "the end of the line"
Tests - no, own versioning not needed as no linked dependencies, but do we need versioned linking to e.g. req?
DD - I think yes for the DD documented in needs, could be used for testing links
documents - open for discussion, I would have said we do not need versions here as there is no need for versioned links, in the doc mgt process we defined that the GitHub provides the versioning, which was accepted by auditors and is less effort.
There is one exception to this: I suggest we make work product template changes (currently these are mostly "documents" in the module_template repo) visible to the implementing documents (already have a "realizes" link, but this goes to the wp definition).
Have one PR which implements the versioning for Req, AoU, Arch, Interface, DD (on the basis of sphinx/needs) and also ask for tests, code versioned links
Describe this and the manual impact analysis based on changes for example in Safety Analysis which is not linked to according to our building blocks concept.
Have another PR with a proposal for documents which have a direct impact on an existing work product (e.g. templates)
Activity
aschemmel-tech commentedon Sep 18, 2026
Req - yes, e.g. to check if linked req, arch, IF, SA may be affected
AoU - yes, e.g. to check if linked req, comp may be affected (is already in req process?)
Arch - yes, e.g. to check if linked SA may be affected
Interface - yes, e.g. to check if the implementing/using comp are affected
SafetyAnalysis - no, is "the end of the line"
Tests - no, own versioning not needed as no linked dependencies, but do we need versioned linking to e.g. req?
DD - I think yes for the DD documented in needs, could be used for testing links
documents - open for discussion, I would have said we do not need versions here as there is no need for versioned links, in the doc mgt process we defined that the GitHub provides the versioning, which was accepted by auditors and is less effort.
There is one exception to this: I suggest we make work product template changes (currently these are mostly "documents" in the module_template repo) visible to the implementing documents (already have a "realizes" link, but this goes to the wp definition).
aschemmel-tech commentedon Sep 28, 2026
agreed with @masc2023 on the basis of process community feedback (https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2234#discussioncomment-18497772) :
aschemmel-tech commentedon Oct 2, 2026
Found that DD has no sphinx needs element any more, so no versioning possible at the moment.
Note that the doc mgt process always described versioning based on github: https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/documentation_management/documentation_concept.html#document-management-tooling
Extend versioning process for reqs and arch (#807)