Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

Hi Otavio,

Since we have diverged off the topic again, I changed the
subject line to invite more folks to chime in.

On 03/24/2014 07:26 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com
> <Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> I am not sure we ought to include it or not. I see valid points for both
>>> and I will focus my answer in the cons:
>>>
>>>   * Documentation: our Release Notes, User Guide and FAQ are still
>>> uncomplete. Add new stuff will only make it worse as those will also need
>>> to be documented.
>>>
>>>   * Tests: We see limited tests using the images we have and people does not
>>> provide much feedback when we open the test form. More things will only
>>> complicate it more.
>>
>> Until here I understand. And I agree.
>>
>>>   * Size: more metadata means more updates and maintenance. We need more
>>> people helping the metadata maintenance before extend it.
>>
>> We already have almost 100% of the boards with maintainers. What do you mean, when you
>> say we need more maintenance before extend the metadata?
>>
>> I still don´t have a clear idea if I like or dislike the idea of downloading more meta layers by default.
>>
>> I´m still deciding ;)
>
> We need to split the maintainership areas:
>
> * boards: Yes, most of board has someone committed nowadays and this
> is awesome. This help us to get tests and feedback from those boards
> and more people to help to address board specific things. However this
> does not address the rest of meta-fsl-arm ...
>
> * core BSP support: here we have some people working. You and me has
> been doing most of work until now and Lauren has been started to
> contribute more to this since Freescale started to work in the
> 3.10.17-1.0.0 BSP. Here we need a lot of help and it does affect
> /every/ board we use/add/maintain ...
>

These are areas where both carrots and sticks might help. It seems
very reasonable to ask each board maintainer to update and test
against some set of target images within a certain time period.

> * technology specific support: here is where we are beginning. This
> involves a lot of commitment and time. Here is where Qt5 and Chromium
> are going to be covered. Currently we have no one really committed to
> either and we cannot supply something in FSL Community BSP which is
> not /maintained/ and for maintained I mean someone watching it and
> doing the rework/improvements/commitments need for it to keep working
> when Qt5 5.3 or Chromium 40 is released.
>

I think you're under-stating the issue here, since there are many
more bits than just Qt5 and Chromium.

Just off the top of my head:

- Is anybody testing DirectFB on a regular basis? (seems a question
on the ML today),
- Up until the recent addition of , there weren't any easy-buttons for
testing the gstreamer plugins in a non-X environment, and
- There's Wayland activity, but AFAIK, no image available to take
advantage of it.

> So it is a extensive topic; I hope it is clear now why I see we need
> more people involved to grow.
>

I feel like I've thrown a couple of bricks in the last week (Chromium
and Qt5), but I hope they can be constructive.

I do think that the questions you raise are worthy of a separate set of
discussions (or at least a separate e-mail chain).

Since there are a lot of different, interested parties with different
agendas, I wonder whether a different (more interactive) forum might
be a better match.

Conference call? Google Hangout meeting?

I'm sure it's too late to schedule anything at FTF, but perhaps not.
I'm also sure that there will be those interested in the topic who
won't be attending.

Regards,


Eric