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

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Otavio,

On 03/24/2014 09:55 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> 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?
>

I don't have any fully-baked ideas, but I think there's some value
is laying out expectations.


>>> * 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...
>

Sorry if that came across badly. I was just making the point that
a lot more specificity would help here.

>> 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.
>
Okay. I didn't know (and perhaps haven't read all of the documentation).

>> - 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.
>

Right.

> 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...
>

Agreed.

> 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?
>

I was just making the point that a broader conversation (with more
specifics) was appropriate.

>> - 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.
>

Cool. Again, I'm just throwing some bombs here to prod the conversation
(and brainstorm a bit) about what/where/how we can get others to take
some responsibility for the parts here.

And when I say others, I include myself in the mix.

>>> 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?
>
>> 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.
>

That makes sense to me.

Communities only work if there's commitment to some effort from
all involved.

Regards,


Eric