* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-24 16:55 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2014-03-24 16:57 ` Daiane.Angolini
2014-03-24 20:45 ` Eric Nelson
2014-03-25 2:56 ` Trevor Woerner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Daiane.Angolini @ 2014-03-24 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Eric Nelson; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otavio.salvador@gmail.com [mailto:otavio.salvador@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Otavio Salvador
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:55 PM
> To: Eric Nelson
> Cc: Angolini Daiane-B19406; meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-
> commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> Part of this has been addressed by the Test Form, which has been done and
> maintained mainly by Daiane which try to make clear what we intend to
> support during the release. However I agree we may need a more frequent
> test to fully address this and here I am out of ideas. So do you have any
> idea how we can improve on this regard?
>
> >> * 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.
>
> Of course; the idea here was to elucidate two more known and often asked
> examples...
>
> > Just off the top of my head:
> >
> > - Is anybody testing DirectFB on a regular basis? (seems a question on
> > the ML today),
>
> This is supported by Freescale so I assume they are doing those tests.
>
> > - Up until the recent addition of , there weren't any easy-buttons for
> > testing the gstreamer plugins in a non-X environment, and
>
> Here again we need to split this:
>
> Freescale 0.10 plugins: this is official material from Freescale and I
> expect those to be tested by them. For example gplay makes it more or less
> easy to use this.
>
> gstreamer-imx (1.0): Carlos has been doing an awesome job here but he
> cannot do all himself and as a community we ought to help here. We need to
> think how to improve this and I am open for ideas here...
>
> packagegroup-fsl-*, fsl-image-machine-test: Rogerio Nunes has started an
> images rework which provides a much better base for test, reuse and long
> term maintenance...
>
> ... however I know that you have this background information so this point
> is not clear to me. What you mean here exactly?
>
> > - There's Wayland activity, but AFAIK, no image available to take
> > advantage of it.
>
> It is still not integrated in meta-fsl-arm. The patches are being worked
> out and we ought to have it integrated soon, however, as DirectFB this is
> something Freescale officially supports so we can rely on them for tests.
>
> >> 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?
>
> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some people
> has suggested it privately in past but our community was still too small
> for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be worth it and I
> am supportive to the idea.
>
> What others think?
+1
Daiane
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure. I will send an e-mail about FTF later today and I think it is a great
> place for us to meet and discuss some of those points face-to-face as the
> FTF and the Google Hangout allow more interactive discussion but this all
> needs to be summarised here, in the mailing list, for a final decision.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
> http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-24 16:55 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-24 16:57 ` Daiane.Angolini
@ 2014-03-24 20:45 ` Eric Nelson
2014-03-25 2:56 ` Trevor Woerner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eric Nelson @ 2014-03-24 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Hi Otavio,
On 03/24/2014 09:55 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Part of this has been addressed by the Test Form, which has been done
> and maintained mainly by Daiane which try to make clear what we intend
> to support during the release.
>
> However I agree we may need a more frequent test to fully address
> this and here I am out of ideas. So do you have any idea how we can
> improve on this regard?
>
I don't have any fully-baked ideas, but I think there's some value
is laying out expectations.
>>> * 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.
>
> Of course; the idea here was to elucidate two more known and often
> asked examples...
>
Sorry if that came across badly. I was just making the point that
a lot more specificity would help here.
>> Just off the top of my head:
>>
>> - Is anybody testing DirectFB on a regular basis? (seems a question
>> on the ML today),
>
> This is supported by Freescale so I assume they are doing those tests.
>
Okay. I didn't know (and perhaps haven't read all of the documentation).
>> - Up until the recent addition of , there weren't any easy-buttons for
>> testing the gstreamer plugins in a non-X environment, and
>
> Here again we need to split this:
>
> Freescale 0.10 plugins: this is official material from Freescale and I
> expect those to be tested by them. For example gplay makes it more or
> less easy to use this.
>
Right.
> gstreamer-imx (1.0): Carlos has been doing an awesome job here but he
> cannot do all himself and as a community we ought to help here. We
> need to think how to improve this and I am open for ideas here...
>
Agreed.
> packagegroup-fsl-*, fsl-image-machine-test: Rogerio Nunes has started
> an images rework which provides a much better base for test, reuse
> and long term maintenance...
>
> ... however I know that you have this background information so this
> point is not clear to me. What you mean here exactly?
>
I was just making the point that a broader conversation (with more
specifics) was appropriate.
>> - There's Wayland activity, but AFAIK, no image available to take
>> advantage of it.
>
> It is still not integrated in meta-fsl-arm. The patches are being
> worked out and we ought to have it integrated soon, however, as
> DirectFB this is something Freescale officially supports so we can
> rely on them for tests.
>
Cool. Again, I'm just throwing some bombs here to prod the conversation
(and brainstorm a bit) about what/where/how we can get others to take
some responsibility for the parts here.
And when I say others, I include myself in the mix.
>>> 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?
>
> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
> people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
> too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
> worth it and I am supportive to the idea.
>
> What others think?
>
>> 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.
>
> Sure. I will send an e-mail about FTF later today and I think it is a
> great place for us to meet and discuss some of those points
> face-to-face as the FTF and the Google Hangout allow more interactive
> discussion but this all needs to be summarised here, in the mailing
> list, for a final decision.
>
That makes sense to me.
Communities only work if there's commitment to some effort from
all involved.
Regards,
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-24 16:55 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-24 16:57 ` Daiane.Angolini
2014-03-24 20:45 ` Eric Nelson
@ 2014-03-25 2:56 ` Trevor Woerner
2014-03-25 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-25 12:35 ` Daiane.Angolini
2 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Trevor Woerner @ 2014-03-25 2:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta-freescale
On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
> people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
> too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
> worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 2:56 ` Trevor Woerner
@ 2014-03-25 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-25 13:59 ` Eric Nelson
` (2 more replies)
2014-03-25 12:35 ` Daiane.Angolini
1 sibling, 3 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-03-25 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trevor Woerner; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Trevor Woerner
<trevor.woerner@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
>> people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
>> too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
>> worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
>
> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
Yes. This would be quite interesting indeed.
For a Google Hangout. Any ideal date for people? We need to first
check the pattern that works for most of us, as:
* Work days or weekend?
* Timezone of preference?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2014-03-25 13:59 ` Eric Nelson
2014-03-25 16:17 ` Trevor Woerner
2014-03-26 14:50 ` Tony Felice
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eric Nelson @ 2014-03-25 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Trevor Woerner; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
On 03/25/2014 04:55 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Trevor Woerner
> <trevor.woerner@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
>>> people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
>>> too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
>>> worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
>>
>> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
>> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
>
> Yes. This would be quite interesting indeed.
>
> For a Google Hangout. Any ideal date for people? We need to first
> check the pattern that works for most of us, as:
>
> * Work days or weekend?
> * Timezone of preference?
>
+1
I'm in MST (UTC-7), and weekends are easiest to schedule.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-25 13:59 ` Eric Nelson
@ 2014-03-25 16:17 ` Trevor Woerner
2014-03-26 14:50 ` Tony Felice
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Trevor Woerner @ 2014-03-25 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
On 03/25/14 07:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
>> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
> Yes. This would be quite interesting indeed.
>
> For a Google Hangout. Any ideal date for people? We need to first
> check the pattern that works for most of us, as:
>
> * Work days or weekend?
Either works, although I'm more likely to be available during the week
rather than on weekends.
> * Timezone of preference?
I'm in the EST timezone (nominally UTC-5, but currently UTC-4 due to
daylight savings).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-25 13:59 ` Eric Nelson
2014-03-25 16:17 ` Trevor Woerner
@ 2014-03-26 14:50 ` Tony Felice
2 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tony Felice @ 2014-03-26 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Hi Otavio,
I'd prefer weekdays over weekends for meetings. We are at timezone UTC-5 (currently UTC-4 for daylight savings).
Thanks,
--
Tony Felice
Vybrid Technical Lead
Timesys Corporation
________________________________________
From: meta-freescale-bounces@yoctoproject.org [meta-freescale-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Otavio Salvador [otavio@ossystems.com.br]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:55 AM
To: Trevor Woerner
Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Trevor Woerner
<trevor.woerner@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
>> people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
>> too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
>> worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
>
> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
Yes. This would be quite interesting indeed.
For a Google Hangout. Any ideal date for people? We need to first
check the pattern that works for most of us, as:
* Work days or weekend?
* Timezone of preference?
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
--
_______________________________________________
meta-freescale mailing list
meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 2:56 ` Trevor Woerner
2014-03-25 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2014-03-25 12:35 ` Daiane.Angolini
2014-03-25 13:24 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-25 16:26 ` Trevor Woerner
1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Daiane.Angolini @ 2014-03-25 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trevor Woerner, meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meta-freescale-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-freescale-
> bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Woerner
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:56 PM
> To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-
> commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
>
> On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
> > people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
> > too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
> > worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
>
> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
Before defining any period. I prefer we define the "agenda for next meeting"
We can build the agenda and when it´s big enough, we set the "next meeting".
Daiane
> --
> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 12:35 ` Daiane.Angolini
@ 2014-03-25 13:24 ` Otavio Salvador
2014-03-25 14:12 ` Eric Nelson
2014-03-25 16:26 ` Trevor Woerner
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-03-25 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Hello Daiane,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com
<Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
>> > people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
>> > too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
>> > worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
>>
>> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
>> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
>
> Before defining any period. I prefer we define the "agenda for next meeting"
>
> We can build the agenda and when it´s big enough, we set the "next meeting".
Ok.
I have started a Google Driver document[1] which can be commented by
anyone. I have added you (Daiane) as editor as well.
1. http://bit.ly/OVtbmd
So let's start work in a draft and then we can keep adding and
reworking it until we get it 'good enough'.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 13:24 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2014-03-25 14:12 ` Eric Nelson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Eric Nelson @ 2014-03-25 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Otavio Salvador, Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com
Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
On 03/25/2014 06:24 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Daiane,
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com
> <Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/24/14 12:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>> Yes; I think a Google Hangout would fit perfectly fine here. Some
>>>> people has suggested it privately in past but our community was still
>>>> too small for it to make sense. I think we are big enough for it to be
>>>> worth it and I am supportive to the idea. What others think?
>>>
>>> I would be in favour of having a google hang-out, or a meeting on IRC.
>>> Perhaps even on a quasi-regular basis?
>>
>> Before defining any period. I prefer we define the "agenda for next meeting"
>>
>> We can build the agenda and when it´s big enough, we set the "next meeting".
>
> Ok.
>
> I have started a Google Driver document[1] which can be commented by
> anyone. I have added you (Daiane) as editor as well.
>
> 1. http://bit.ly/OVtbmd
>
> So let's start work in a draft and then we can keep adding and
> reworking it until we get it 'good enough'.
>
Thanks Otavio.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 12:35 ` Daiane.Angolini
2014-03-25 13:24 ` Otavio Salvador
@ 2014-03-25 16:26 ` Trevor Woerner
2014-03-25 16:32 ` Otavio Salvador
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Trevor Woerner @ 2014-03-25 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
On 03/25/14 08:35, Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com wrote:
> Before defining any period. I prefer we define the "agenda for next meeting"
>
> We can build the agenda and when it´s big enough, we set the "next meeting".
I think these meetings would be a good opportunity for maintainers to
get together and discuss any issues they're facing leading into the next
release. Maybe these meetings could provide an opportunity to update
status information with respect to testing efforts in order to keep all
the board testing moving forward as we come into the next release?
I'm not implying these meetings should only be for maintainers, I'm just
pointing them out as one example of a group who might benefit from such
a meeting.
As such an agenda item could be:
- short testing status from maintainers/testers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: Call for maintainers (was [RFC PATCH] fsl-commity-bsp: Add meta-qt5)
2014-03-25 16:26 ` Trevor Woerner
@ 2014-03-25 16:32 ` Otavio Salvador
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Otavio Salvador @ 2014-03-25 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trevor Woerner; +Cc: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
Hello Trevor,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Trevor Woerner
<trevor.woerner@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 03/25/14 08:35, Daiane.Angolini@freescale.com wrote:
>> Before defining any period. I prefer we define the "agenda for next meeting"
>>
>> We can build the agenda and when it´s big enough, we set the "next meeting".
>
> I think these meetings would be a good opportunity for maintainers to
> get together and discuss any issues they're facing leading into the next
> release. Maybe these meetings could provide an opportunity to update
> status information with respect to testing efforts in order to keep all
> the board testing moving forward as we come into the next release?
Good idea.
> I'm not implying these meetings should only be for maintainers, I'm just
> pointing them out as one example of a group who might benefit from such
> a meeting.
Sure but this is a perfect opportunity for this status update to
happen; besides it improves the social integration of the maintainers
and easy share of work and knowledge in long term.
> As such an agenda item could be:
> - short testing status from maintainers/testers
Added it in a 'section' called Status.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread