[yocto-ab] external board farm

[Cherry, John]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kridner, Jason [mailto:jdk at ti.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:44 PM
> To: Cherry, John; Anderson, Paul; Osier-mixon, Jeffrey; Richard Purdie
> Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: RE: [yocto-ab] external board farm
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [yocto-ab-
> bounces at yoctoproject.org] on behalf of Cherry, John
> [John_Cherry at mentor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:49 PM
> To: Anderson, Paul; Osier-mixon, Jeffrey; Richard Purdie
> Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] external board farm
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-ab-
> > bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Paul
> > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:11 PM
> > To: Osier-mixon, Jeffrey; Richard Purdie
> > Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] external board farm
> >
> > > I have a memory that we discussed a distributed build farm. That
> > might be cheaper, and if someone like Mentor were to develop software
> > to run it and open-source it, perhaps that could become part of the
> > Yocto project. On the other hand, it means duplication of effort in
> the
> > labs themselves.
> >
> > Wind River also has an extensive build farm, automated test, and lab
> > management capability that could be used as well. Let's discuss the
> > operational needs for build, test as well as what board lab
> > infrastructure we might want available to the project and its users
> > over time.
> 
> Yes, we all have our internal build/test farms with lab management
> capabilities.  And we all understand what a pain it is to keep a board
> farm current, running, and useful.  I definitely agree that we need a
> shared and/or distributed mechanism to do this, if for nothing else to
> reduce the redundancy of efforts.
> 
> A couple quick questions for the device/silicon vendors...
> 
> - Would you participate (contribute to) in a shared/distributed board
> farm, or will there be IP issues in making this truly affective?
> 
> [Jason] Yes, we would participate with at least some of our platforms
> and some logistical setup support.
> 
> - Would you prefer a single shared farm, or a distributed set of farms?
> 
> [Jason] There is some value to distribution and a bit of access
> fairness, but I'm OK with that being a roadmap item at launch.
> 
> - Would you take the responsibility to keep the boards in the board
> farm at current revisions and take responsibility for maintenance
>   of these boards?
> 
> [Jason] Yes, for a small number of platforms.

By "small number of platforms", I assume these are the reference platforms that would have value in Yocto regression testing.  Any idea what these platforms might be in the next, say, 6 months?  Other than the BeagleBoard.  :)

> 
> >
> > > As Richard says, I'm glad to see someone taking the lead. John, is
> > there anything specific you need before moving forward?
> >
> > John -- perhaps we can catch up on this and other things sometime
> soon?
> 
> Be glad to catch up on this and other things soon.  At least for the
> board farm options, I think we need to get some kind of AB agreement
> before we can get much further on the logistics for making it happen.
> 
> Hey, we missed you at LinuxCon Paul.  Hope all is well.
> 
> John
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -pja
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yocto-ab mailing list
> > yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
> _______________________________________________
> yocto-ab mailing list
> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab