[meta-freescale] Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)

Mon Mar 24 09:57:18 PDT 2014


> -----Original Message-----
> From: otavio.salvador at gmail.com [mailto:otavio.salvador at gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:55 PM
> To: Eric Nelson
> Cc: Angolini Daiane-B19406; meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-
> commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson at boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> > Hi Otavio,
> >
> > Since we have diverged off the topic again, I changed the subject line
> > to invite more folks to chime in.
> >
> > On 03/24/2014 07:26 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Daiane.Angolini at freescale.com
> >> <Daiane.Angolini at freescale.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure we ought to include it or not. I see valid points for
> >>>> both and I will focus my answer in the cons:
> >>>>
> >>>>   * Documentation: our Release Notes, User Guide and FAQ are still
> >>>> uncomplete. Add new stuff will only make it worse as those will
> >>>> also need to be documented.
> >>>>
> >>>>   * Tests: We see limited tests using the images we have and people
> >>>> does not provide much feedback when we open the test form. More
> >>>> things will only complicate it more.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Until here I understand. And I agree.
> >>>
> >>>>   * Size: more metadata means more updates and maintenance. We need
> >>>> more people helping the metadata maintenance before extend it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We already have almost 100% of the boards with maintainers. What do
> >>> you mean, when you say we need more maintenance before extend the
> >>> metadata?
> >>>
> >>> I still don´t have a clear idea if I like or dislike the idea of
> >>> downloading more meta layers by default.
> >>>
> >>> I´m still deciding ;)
> >>
> >>
> >> We need to split the maintainership areas:
> >>
> >> * boards: Yes, most of board has someone committed nowadays and this
> >> is awesome. This help us to get tests and feedback from those boards
> >> and more people to help to address board specific things. However
> >> this does not address the rest of meta-fsl-arm ...
> >>
> >> * core BSP support: here we have some people working. You and me has
> >> been doing most of work until now and Lauren has been started to
> >> contribute more to this since Freescale started to work in the
> >> 3.10.17-1.0.0 BSP. Here we need a lot of help and it does affect
> >> /every/ board we use/add/maintain ...
> >
> > These are areas where both carrots and sticks might help. It seems
> > very reasonable to ask each board maintainer to update and test
> > against some set of target images within a certain time period.
> 
> 
> Part of this has been addressed by the Test Form, which has been done and
> maintained mainly by Daiane which try to make clear what we intend to
> support during the release. However I agree we may need a more frequent
> test to fully address this and here I am out of ideas. So do you have any
> idea how we can improve on this regard?
> 
> >> * technology specific support: here is where we are beginning. This
> >> involves a lot of commitment and time. Here is where Qt5 and Chromium
> >> are going to be covered. Currently we have no one really committed to
> >> either and we cannot supply something in FSL Community BSP which is
> >> not /maintained/ and for maintained I mean someone watching it and
> >> doing the rework/improvements/commitments need for it to keep working
> >> when Qt5 5.3 or Chromium 40 is released.
> >
> > I think you're under-stating the issue here, since there are many more
> > bits than just Qt5 and Chromium.
> 
> Of course; the idea here was to elucidate two more known and often asked
> examples...
> 
> > Just off the top of my head:
> >
> > - Is anybody testing DirectFB on a regular basis? (seems a question on
> > the ML today),
> 
> This is supported by Freescale so I assume they are doing those tests.
> 
> > - Up until the recent addition of , there weren't any easy-buttons for
> > testing the gstreamer plugins in a non-X environment, and
> 
> Here again we need to split this:
> 
> Freescale 0.10 plugins: this is official material from Freescale and I
> expect those to be tested by them. For example gplay makes it more or less
> easy to use this.
> 
> gstreamer-imx (1.0): Carlos has been doing an awesome job here but he
> cannot do all himself and as a community we ought to help here. We need to
> think how to improve this and I am open for ideas here...
> 
> packagegroup-fsl-*, fsl-image-machine-test: Rogerio Nunes has started an
> images rework which provides a much better base  for test, reuse and long
> term maintenance...
> 
> ... however I know that you have this background information so this point
> is not clear to me. What you mean here exactly?
> 
> > - There's Wayland activity, but AFAIK, no image available to take
> > advantage of it.
> 
> It is still not integrated in meta-fsl-arm. The patches are being worked
> out and we ought to have it integrated soon, however, as DirectFB this is
> something Freescale officially supports so we can rely on them for tests.
> 
> >> So it is a extensive topic; I hope it is clear now why I see we need
> >> more people involved to grow.
> >
> > I feel like I've thrown a couple of bricks in the last week (Chromium
> > and Qt5), but I hope they can be constructive.
> >
> > I do think that the questions you raise are worthy of a separate set
> > of discussions (or at least a separate e-mail chain).
> >
> > Since there are a lot of different, interested parties with different
> > agendas, I wonder whether a different (more interactive) forum might
> > be a better match.
> >
> > Conference call? Google Hangout meeting?
> 
> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some people
> has suggested it privately in past but our community was still too small
> for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be worth it and I
> am supportive to the idea.
> 
> What others think?

+1

Daiane
> 
> > I'm sure it's too late to schedule anything at FTF, but perhaps not.
> > I'm also sure that there will be those interested in the topic who
> > won't be attending.
> 
> Sure. I will send an e-mail about FTF later today and I think it is a great
> place for us to meet and discuss some of those points face-to-face as the
> FTF and the Google Hangout allow more interactive discussion but this all
> needs to be summarised here, in the mailing list, for a final decision.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
>