What is the best path to upgrade from ReqPro 7.1.2 / RQM 2.0.1.1 to RRC/RQM 4.0.3?
I have an RQM 2.0.1.1 instance integrated with ReqPro 7.1.2. I would like to migrate ReqPro to RRC 4.0.3 and upgrade RQM to 4.0.3, maintaining all existing links between ReqPro and RQM.
I know I need to upgrade ReqPro to at least 7.1.2.2 to enable migration to RRC while maintaining links to RQM, and I know I need to upgrade RQM to 3.0.1.x before upgrading to 4.x. I want to perform each upgrade step on its own and stabilize in production for a week or two to minimize risk (rather than performing all required upgrades in one weekend). My current thought is to perform the steps as follows: 1. Upgrade RQM to 3.0.1.x (integrating with ReqPro 7.1.2) 2. Upgrade ReqPro to 7.1.3.8 (integrating with RQM 3.0.1.x) 3. Upgrade RQM to 4.0.3 (integrating with ReqPro 7.1.3.8) 4. Migrate ReqPro to RRC 4.0.3 (integrating with RQM 4.0.3) I believe all versions of RQM/ReqPro above are supported with each other. Can anyone spot any problems with this sequence? Would switching the order of any steps make anything easier? |
One answer
We also did a major upgrade from RQM2->4, but not ReqPro, instead Doors.
I cannot comment on the ReqPro side, but the main thing I can suggest is to trial the upgrade in a test environment and verify it all there. In fact, we did the end to end upgrade 3-4 times before doing the live one. We learned quite a lot from this, including tweaking the process and understanding the limitations of the tools.
The trial will tell you how long each step will take. Before we started, we estimated just RQM2->4 would take 5-6 days, in the end, it took just under 5 (and we had to pull out every trick in the book to get it that fast!). The RQM 2->3 was the slowest, due to the amount of data we had, this took about 3 days on its own. On the other hand the upgrade from RQM3->4 was very quick. So you may find you will want to combine some of the steps in a single weekend.
Finally, I've said this before, but the upgrade tools from RQM2->3 are very poor. They are slow, unforgiving (we had to be given hotfixes just so we could debug problems), there are many manual steps, on the whole, in my opinion, not good enough, so run through it many times before doing the real thing.
|
Your answer
Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.