[yocto-ab] [Fwd: Removing builds of meta-fsl-* from the autobuilder]

[Philip Balister]

On 04/29/2016 08:36 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 09:21 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Richard Purdie
>> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 08:49 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Richard Purdie
>>>> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 08:12 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Richard Purdie
>>>>>> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> For people's reference. I don't like having to do this,
>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> think we have much choice (and sorry Otavio, I know you
>>>>>>> have an
>>>>>>> interest in that too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not know the autobuilder were a Gold exclusivity. We
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> meta-fsl-arm under AB before NXP join as it was under O.S.
>>>>>> Systems
>>>>>> registration and this sudden change is not good.
>>>>>
>>>>> It had actually been done before O.S. Systems joined and had
>>>>> been
>>>>> there
>>>>> to try and encourage Freescale to join the project. At gold
>>>>> that
>>>>> seemed
>>>>> reasonable, at silver, I don't think its appropriate any more
>>>>> :(.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did mention this when I heard NXP were changing level but it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> seem to matter to them as far as I can tell.
>>>>
>>>> Those rules ought to be written somewhere and not decided on the
>>>> fly.
>>>
>>> Whenever we're discussed the membership criteria, the autobuilder
>>> has
>>> always been a gold level item. We've been consistent about that. We
>>> have taken a "loss leader" type approach with some people as I
>>> mentioned but this certainly hasn't been decided "on the fly" at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> The reason why its gold level is due to the amount of various
>>> people's
>>> time it takes up as well as the physical resources it needs, its
>>> simply
>>> not viable otherwise.
>>
>> Please point me the link for the membership criteria.
> 
> I didn't say it was well documented, I said that I've mentioned it in
> each discussion we've had on membership criteria and I've been pushing
> the advisory board to resolve the docuemtnation for a long time. My
> understanding that its a gold benefit has promoted by the LF, its the
> reason some people joined as gold and we need to be fair about the
> rules, well documented or otherwise.
> 
> There needs to be a reaction to the drop in membership level and this
> is my understanding of how our current setup works and what the
> different benefits are.
> 
> If the advisory board wishes to advise me that I'm in error, it can.
> 
> I'd strongly suggest that $10,000 doesn't buy you the autobuilder
> testing though as its not economically viable. I've been *very* clear
> about this all along.

Autobuilder testing (and the bug fixing needed to keep it meaningful)
cost far more the 10K.

Also, we should make it very, very clear that running the build doesn't
mean anyone is dedicated to fixing problems.

Philip

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
>