Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[Jolley, Stephen K]

Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
 
Agenda:
* Opens collection - 5 min (Stephen)
* Yocto Project status - 5 min (Stephen/team)
.	YP 2.2 M1 took longer to release 
        - Stabilize it
        - Performance issues
	   - GCC, GTK, Python3
        - Number of high bugs
        - Released
        YP 2.2 M2
        - selftest patch
        - Completed QA
          Higher number of bugs across multiple areas
        - Fixed Performance issues
          Kernel enabled DEBUG which increased size and time
          Parsing linux-yocto-dev increased time.
        YP 2.2 M3 is the final milestone for enhancements
        - M3 Closes on Aug 29th
	YP 2.1.1
        - rc1 is getting QA'ed now
        - Possible release next week pending QA completion
        YP 2.0.3 Planning
        - Has about 20 patches since 2.0.2 release
        - Possible post 2.2 timeframe (November)

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v2.2_Status
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_2.2_Schedule
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_2.2_Features
* Opens - 10 min
	Package Manager for 2.2 and beyond
        - probably smart for 2.2
        - looking into dnf for future
        Kernel Version will be either 4.7 or 4.8
        - Waiting for 4.8 rc2/3 and check with GregKH
        Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
        - Community Driven
        - 2 Years
        - Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
interested in.
        - Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data

* Team Sharing - 10 min
 RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
  - fixes various other tools
  - Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraits

Thanks,
 
Sau!

Re: Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[Philip Balister]

On 08/02/2016 11:23 AM, Jolley, Stephen K wrote:
> Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
>  
....

>         Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
>         - Community Driven
>         - 2 Years
>         - Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
> interested in.
>         - Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data

This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project
needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?

Philip


> 
> * Team Sharing - 10 min
>  RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
>   - fixes various other tools
>   - Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraits
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> Sau!
> 

Re: Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[akuster808]

On 8/3/16 6:19 AM, Philip Balister wrote:
>
> On 08/02/2016 11:23 AM, Jolley, Stephen K wrote:
>> Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
>>  
> ....
>
>>         Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
>>         - Community Driven
>>         - 2 Years
>>         - Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
>> interested in.
>>         - Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
> This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project
> needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?

I am glad you asked.

In order for a Yocto Member to be Yocto Compatible, any changes made to
Bitbake or OE-core have to be submitted to the mailing list. If I have
to submit changes then is makes sense that there be a central place like
a repo where these changes can live. We have this for the first year.
MontaVista and I am sure other Member's support products beyond the
first year.  It seems natural to have a process in place to continue the
behavior and work Yocto Members are required to perform to maintain
Yocto compatibility. Or are you saying Yocto Compatible is only good for
1 year?

It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE
core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor
would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.

As I see it, an LTS branch would only exist if there is a need and is
supported by the ones who desire the LTS branch.  I am sure there will
be some prerequisites in doing this.  I don't see this as a bad thing
for the community or the Project.

regards,
Armin



>
> Philip
>
>
>> * Team Sharing - 10 min
>>  RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
>>   - fixes various other tools
>>   - Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraits
>>
>> Thanks,
>>  
>> Sau!
>>

Re: Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[Anders Darander]

* akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> [160803 17:18]:

> On 8/3/16 6:19 AM, Philip Balister wrote:

> > On 08/02/2016 11:23 AM, Jolley, Stephen K wrote:
> >> Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill

> > ....

> >>         Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
> >>         - Community Driven
> >>         - 2 Years
> >>         - Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
> >> interested in.
> >>         - Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
> > This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project
> > needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?

> It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE
> core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor
> would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.

I'm pretty sure that this is the point Philip was after, that it really
doesn't make sense for Poky.

LTS branches in oe-core and bitbake, OTOH, makes sense, and would be
appreciated by quite some. 

Cheers,
Anders

-- 
Anders Darander, Senior System Architect
ChargeStorm AB / eStorm AB

Re: Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2490 bytes --]


> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:17 AM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 8/3/16 6:19 AM, Philip Balister wrote:
>> 
>> On 08/02/2016 11:23 AM, Jolley, Stephen K wrote:
>>> Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
>>> 
>> ....
>> 
>>>        Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
>>>        - Community Driven
>>>        - 2 Years
>>>        - Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
>>> interested in.
>>>        - Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
>> This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project
>> needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
> 
> I am glad you asked.
> 
> In order for a Yocto Member to be Yocto Compatible, any changes made to
> Bitbake or OE-core have to be submitted to the mailing list. If I have
> to submit changes then is makes sense that there be a central place like
> a repo where these changes can live. We have this for the first year.
> MontaVista and I am sure other Member's support products beyond the
> first year.  It seems natural to have a process in place to continue the
> behavior and work Yocto Members are required to perform to maintain
> Yocto compatibility. Or are you saying Yocto Compatible is only good for
> 1 year?

Dont we accept patches indefinitely as long as they keep coming?
so in theory every branch is LTS for someone if one cares enough
about compatibility with compliance programs. However, LTS does provide
a cushion for decision makers, practically, I see we are doing it
ever since.

> 
> It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE
> core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor
> would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.
> 
> As I see it, an LTS branch would only exist if there is a need and is
> supported by the ones who desire the LTS branch.  I am sure there will
> be some prerequisites in doing this.  I don't see this as a bad thing
> for the community or the Project.
> 
> regards,
> Armin
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Philip
>> 
>> 
>>> * Team Sharing - 10 min
>>> RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
>>>  - fixes various other tools
>>>  - Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraits
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Sau!
>>> 
> 
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[akuster808]

On 08/09/2016 12:36 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:17 AM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/3/16 6:19 AM, Philip Balister wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2016 11:23 AM, Jolley, Stephen K wrote:
>>>> Attendees: Saul, David Wolfe, Joshua, Belen, Ross, Mark, Bill
>>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>>>        Poky - LTS/LTM Branch
>>>>        - Community Driven
>>>>        - 2 Years
>>>>        - Companies continue to push on older branches that they are
>>>> interested in.
>>>>        - Most patches would be in Oe-Core meta-data
>>> This kind of jumped out at me. Can anyone explain why the Yocto Project
>>> needs an LTS version of the reference distribution?
>>
>> I am glad you asked.
>>
>> In order for a Yocto Member to be Yocto Compatible, any changes made to
>> Bitbake or OE-core have to be submitted to the mailing list. If I have
>> to submit changes then is makes sense that there be a central place like
>> a repo where these changes can live. We have this for the first year.
>> MontaVista and I am sure other Member's support products beyond the
>> first year.  It seems natural to have a process in place to continue the
>> behavior and work Yocto Members are required to perform to maintain
>> Yocto compatibility. Or are you saying Yocto Compatible is only good for
>> 1 year?
> 
> Dont we accept patches indefinitely as long as they keep coming?

Are far as I know we do.

> so in theory every branch is LTS for someone if one cares enough
> about compatibility with compliance programs.

Only if patches make it into a stable branch will they count, it makes
it more official. It is the overhead placed upon Richard and his minions
to take those patches and check them into the appropriate stable
branches. This drops off dramatically once a stable branch transitions
to EOL.


 However, LTS does provide
> a cushion for decision makers, practically, I see we are doing it
> ever since.
> 
>>
>> It not so much having an LTS Poky as much as having LTS branches for OE
>> core and bitbake. This means Poky would not have to be kept updated nor
>> would the Yocto Project need to build or QA the LTS branches.
>>
>> As I see it, an LTS branch would only exist if there is a need and is
>> supported by the ones who desire the LTS branch.  I am sure there will
>> be some prerequisites in doing this.  I don't see this as a bad thing
>> for the community or the Project.
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Philip
>>>
>>>
>>>> * Team Sharing - 10 min
>>>> RP has branch with multi-config in parallel
>>>>  - fixes various other tools
>>>>  - Distributed builds in 2.2 is unlikely due to resource constraits
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Sau!
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
> 

Minutes: Yocto Project Technical Team Meeting - Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:00 AM US Pacific Time

[Jolley, Stephen K]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

Attendees: Stephen, Joshua, Bill, Sona, Randy, Ross, Michael,



Agenda:

* Opens collection - 5 min (Stephen)

* Yocto Project status - 5 min (Stephen/team)

*        YP 1.8.2 was released 2 weeks ago.

*        YP 2.0.2 was released last week.

*        YP 2.2 M1 cut off is next Monday.   We have a test build in QA to insure all the Python 3 upgrade changes go OK.

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v2.2_Status

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_2.2_Schedule

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_2.2_Features

* Opens - 10 min

*        Discussed the issues we have seen with the Python 3 upgrade.

*        Smart package manger changes will most likely push past M1.  Analysis is still in process.

*        Discussed enhancement 7515 - It is now targeted for M2.

* Team Sharing - 10 min




Thanks,

Stephen K. Jolley
Yocto Project Program Manager
INTEL, MS JF1-255, 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR 97124
*   Work Telephone:          (503) 712-0534
*    Cell:                               (208) 244-4460
* Email:                             stephen.k.jolley@intel.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18830 bytes --]