[yocto-ab] Member involvement in the core of the project

[Chris Hallinan]

My first question is: why don't we do more to enforce member
participation?  Perhaps it should be a hard requirement of membership and
badging.  Personally, since 1) I am not a developer and 2) I have many
demands for my time, I myself am not familiar with all of the testing
infrastructure, and I'd welcome a formal 1-hour webex-style presentation on
the subject.

I wasn't aware of that recipe reporting system, is that basically just
meta-oe/poky?  Very nice.

I know we at Mentor have never made use of autobuilder, etc.  I've had
discussions internally about that, and I'm certain there is value there,
but we have our own internal testing infrastructure which as you can
imaging, has had quite significant investment, as I'm sure is true for all
of the commercial software vendors and likely the semi manufacturers, too.
Maybe part of the discussion is how to get more member participation there.

At a minimum we should put the subject on the agenda for next month's
face-to-face.

-Chris



On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> One issue I've been giving some thought to is involvement of members
> and their developers in the core engineering of the project. There are
> several kinds of activity people undertake:
>
> * Ownership of areas, reviewing and handling patches there
> * Stable branch maintainership
> * Bug fixing
> * Recipe ownership and maintenance
> * SWAT team (owns handling autobuilder monitoring/reporting)
>
> We've a lot of interesting process pieces which I'd really like to
> expose to a wider audience as I think people don't realise the power of
> some of the automated tooling or testing infrastructure we have.
>
> One area that springs to mind is recipe maintainership. You can view
> the automated reporting we have at http://recipes.yoctoproject.org/rrs/
> recipes/2.2/M4/ and this tells us who maintains a given OE-Core recipe,
> what the current version is and what the current upstream release is
> at.
>
> I'm sure that the role of recipe maintainer is not as well documented
> as perhaps it should be and this is something we can fix comparatively
> easily. It boils down to being responsible for updating to new versions
> when they become available and helping fix bugs in particular recipes
> if any arise. It also carries a responsibility to improve testing, be
> it by adding ptest to recipes if appropriate, or helping test recipes
> through our other automated test means. I'd like to suggest that member
> organisations each pick up responsibility for at least some handful of
> recipes.
>
> We have a comparatively large test matrix and a level of test
> automation which I'm proud of. I'd love to see people learning about
> our tools (recipe reporting, devtool, etc.) and our testing techniques
> (ptest, oe-selftest, testimage, etc.) and then taking these into other
> layers and places.
>
> Members technically are required to provide a development resource who
> works on the core of the project and we've traditionally not enforced
> this. Something like recipe maintainership could be an easily tracked
> and comparatively fair way of indicating involvement and support of the
> project and also would then encourage the above transfer of technology
> from the core layer into the wider ecosystem.
>
> I was planning to raise this and discuss this further at the advisory
> board meeting but this would seem like a good place/time to start a
> discussion.
>
> Thoughts/feedback/comments welcome.
>
> I'm particularly open to other ideas on how we get members more
> involved.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto-ab mailing list
> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>



-- 
Life is like Linux - it never stands still.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto-ab/attachments/20160930/df9e8ce9/attachment.html>