Qualification of RTEMS SMP (ECSS)

[Chris Johns]

On 08/12/2018 00:45, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 06/12/2018 01:47, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>> - Will all the work also be planned on public channels (devel@, public WIP
>>>> branches, etc.)?
>>> The project infrastructure is undecided. We probably need some extra Git
>>> repositories for WIP stuff. I am not sure if we want to add WIP branches to the
>>> main RTEMS repositories.
>> I would need to see some more detail on what you and others are considering as a
>> way of working before I can agree to adding branches. Branches are easy to
>> create, it is what happens to them and when that is the hard part.
> 
> I don't think project-specific branches in the main repositories are a good
> idea.

I agree.

> I think the private repositories we used for example during the make
> preinstall elimination are better for work in progress stuff.

I am happy with developer repo's being used.

>>
>> Why not use master?
> 
> For the RTEMS sources we can use the master. For other parts, e.g. things that
> may go into rtems-tools or whatever, which are newly developed I think it is
> beneficial if some project internal review happens first before it is presented
> to the overall RTEMS community.

Yes this is fine. The rtems-tools project is now an important part of the RTEMS
eco-system and I agree we need to handle what happens with it in a more formal
manner.

I added Python unit tests recently with the `./waf test` command. Most of the
python unit tests are easy to implement, extend and run while some are more
complicated like sending an email. The linker tests are harder because of the
dependence on a built BSP for ELF object files unless we add some object files
to the repo, something I am not sure about. I am currently uses some RTEMS
kernel tests as a way of testing some of these commands.

> Everyone interested should still have the opportunity to look at it.

This is fine if we assume those who can review the changes are able too. The
qual effort and those driving this need to understand what this means and manage it.

>>> Maybe we can host the WIP repositories on rtems.org or Github.
>> The RTEMS Project does not support the hosting of active repos on github, we
>> mirror repos we consider important. We host our repos on git.rtems.org. My
>> concern fragmenting what we have and where users find things.
> 
> Yes, this is a valid issue. Google finds all sorts of RTEMS repositories for
> example.

My only answer is to say the rtems.org based repositories are the upstream masters.

Chris