[yocto-ab] Proposal for core development

[Richard Purdie]

[Add Ross]

On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 17:55 -0700, akuster wrote:
> On 10/05/2016 03:19 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Based on these things, I propose that:
> > 
> > a) Each member organisation nominates their developer resource and
> > lets
> > Jefro know who this is (likely to become a wiki page).
> > b) We form a subgroup for recipe maintainership based on this list.
> > This would be a technical subgroup rather than an administrative
> > subgroup of the AB. We've not done this before but I think we can
> > have
> > a technical subgroup, it may technically report through me as the
> > architect but I don't think it matters too much.
> > c) I talked with David Cobbley and we've agreed Ross Burton could
> > lead
> > and coordinate this subgroup.
> > d) The subgroup will determine how exactly to give each developer
> > some
> > recipes to maintain.
> > e) The subgroup can use the monthly technical calls to coordinate
> > and
> > increase the frequency if/as needed to get this rolling
> > f) There will be training included on the tools and processes the
> > project is using. There will be an open invitation to others for
> > the
> > training as I know others are interested in learning more about
> > what we
> > have there.
> > g) The subgroup monitors its progress and quantifies participation.
> > h) Ross reports back to AB meetings on the status of the subgroup.
> > i) This "core development" would cover recipes within OE-Core and
> > is
> > limited to that scope.
> > j) Part of the objective here would be for each maintainer to add
> > ptest
> > support to at least one recipe to gain that experience/education.
> Shoot for the Moon. What about protectively back porting bug  and 
> security fixes?

That is a really good topic to raise as part of the discussion Ross
will be having about what this entails and building the processes.

> > k) Philip will raise this with the OE community and see if anyone
> > there
> > also wants to step up and join in from the wider community, on the
> > understanding there is a commitment here. I suspect that some
> > people
> > may find the training from f) and processes useful for their own
> > layers
> > even if they don't end up maintaining core recipes.
> What happened to the auto updater?

Its still there and will be included in the discussions and people will
be given access to its output.

> > 
> > I've left this a little open ended as I'd like the subgroup to have
> > power over their own destiny. They are free to raise problems to me
> > or
> > the AB and seek advice as needed, or help on decision making if
> > they
> > can't reach decisions.
> I take this applies only to Master and not to stable branches.

At present. Stable branches are a step beyond this and I'm trying to do
one step at a time! Its a valid point though.

Cheers,

Richard