Change Control Board (CCB) proposal for requirements
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Tue Jul 23 18:53:27 UTC 2019
----- Am 23. Jul 2019 um 19:26 schrieb Sebastian Huber sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de:
> ----- Am 23. Jul 2019 um 17:30 schrieb joel joel at rtems.org:
>> One random thought is how to ensure that patches from people with
>> hardware who submit patches to fix bugs get through the process.
>> We have generally trusted people who have hardware. This is common
>> for boards none of us have.
>> Also we have relied on a timeout rule and a level of significance. Like
>> I committed a one-character fix for an error message in ticker.
>> There is also a level of significance where a ticket is required.
>> Yes we generally want an independent review but we have generally
>> all had a threshold where that's needed.
> Ok, I will try to mix in some common sense in the next version.
> What do you think about the digital signature stuff? Is this overkill? Could it
> be something which NASA would use? I didn't talk with ESA about this (they are
> currently on holidays). It is just some idea I had this weekend.
An alternative to this digital signature stuff is a replacement of MD5 for the fingerprint with a proper hash function, e.g. SHA512. Users can then simply dump the fingerprints into a report and later on check if requirements changed.
More information about the devel