Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


- Build Tools
- UML Modeling
- Debugging and Analysis
- Automated Testing


paulsherwood== GENIVI Tools Team Meeting Starts ==14:00
paulsherwoodlast week's minutes are at
gunnarxoops, didn't have time to respond14:00
*** stevel_ has joined #automotive14:00
paulsherwoodany proposed additions to agenda?
paulsherwoodgunnarx: no problem... i've raised a jira item for you :)14:00
paulsherwoodand one for me too14:01
gunnarxuh, I meant on the phone call question14:01
paulsherwoodah, ok14:01
paulsherwoodif you prefer a call, i'm happy to open it14:01
gunnarxLooks like few participants today.  We could run through the topics, so I expect informal IRC chat would be just as likely14:02
paulsherwoodlet's start, then...14:02
paulsherwood- Build Tools -14:03
paulsherwoodgunnarx: i know there's been further discussion on your poroposal...14:03
paulsherwoodhave you managed to publish it yet?14:03
gunnarxActually it's not being rolled out with a bang but rather with the few companies that reported interest first.14:04
gunnarxThis is so that we have a proven concept before BoD gives go-ahead full scale.14:05
gunnarxCodethink will get an update from me today.14:05
paulsherwoodok... last week according to the discussion here i understood the idea was to publish the proposal... is that no longer the case in the short term?14:06
gunnarxthat was my original desire, it is now shifted to early-access to a few.  maybe not a bad idea to test the concept a bit.14:07
paulsherwoodfair enough. are you open to more participants, in addition to those who have already expressed interest?14:07
* paulsherwood is asking for the public record, in case others are wondering whether to jump in14:08
gunnarxyes I am.  I think the basic concept has been outlined here before, has it not?  If a company is willing to report their interest right away to sponsor a build agent (=server that receives build jobs), then please jump in.  Otherwise, a formal request will follow later on when it can also be shown running.14:09
paulsherwoodgunnarx: i think the concept has been outlined and you have been kind enough to desribe the concepts via screenshare, but nothing published here or to the list so far? i may be wrong14:10
gunnarxI understand there may be companies that are likely interested, but want more information.  However, the roll-out plan, as I have been advised to pursue this,  is those who have already shown interest are part of the the first wave.14:11
paulsherwoodack. makes sense14:11
gunnarxhope the second wave can start... soon though14:11
paulsherwoodok, any more on build tools?14:11
gmacarioHi there, sorry for being late!14:12
paulsherwoodgmacario: welcome!14:12
paulsherwoodlast call for build-tools discussion14:12
gunnarxnope - as I said if any company wants to jump on the first wave with the info given, let me know.  otherwise soon you will have a chance again14:13
paulsherwoodok, next up...14:13
paulsherwood- UML Modeling -14:13
gmacarioReading about whitepaper14:13
gunnarxgmacario:  let me know if you have any technical questions later.  we're moving on the agenda i think.14:13
gmacarioI should probably ask gunnarx to forward me the same info that he provided to the other participant in "early access"14:13
*** pavelk has joined #automotive14:14
paulsherwoodgood idea :)14:14
gunnarxI got the feeling in previous discussion that Mentor is not really jumping on the chance to sponsor a build agent?  Maybe a complete misunderstanding.14:14
gunnarxDo you have such a plan (even personally maybe?) gmacario?14:14
gmacarioPlease define FTE and $$$ for "sponsoring a build agent" :P14:14
gunnarxok.  moving on?14:15
gmacariogunnarx: Indeed - and please see my
paulsherwoodi thought we had, yes :)14:15
* paulsherwood notes manfred does not appear to be here14:15
paulsherwoodand i had apologies from kbirken14:15
paulsherwoodmaybe this topic should resume next week?14:16
*** toscalix has quit IRC14:16
paulsherwood(unless someone got to the bottom of svn-git etc)(14:17
paulsherwoodany comments on UML modeling here, now?14:17
* paulsherwood notices tumbleweed flying past...14:18
gunnarxsorry, was looking at "issues""14:19
paulsherwoodas we said... not many participants here today...14:19
paulsherwoodso moving on14:19
paulsherwood- Debugging and Analysis -14:19
gunnarxI have nothing, still would take pull requests on "franca automation" for installing GDB support and similar14:19
paulsherwoodshame... even CTpollard seems to be absent, i washoping he might have thought more on the debugging stuff14:20
paulsherwoodgunnarx: noted14:20
paulsherwoodmoving on? fast meetign this week :-)14:20
paulsherwood- Automated Testing -14:21
gmacarioHow is this topic different from GoCD right now?14:21
gunnarxWho's working on lava I wonder?14:21
paulsherwoodyou mean in GENIVI, gunnarx ?14:22
paulsherwoodor in general?14:22
gunnarxyes, setting up on-target tests related to automotive/GENIVI14:22
gunnarxa lot of talk, less results so far14:22
stevel_gunnarx: the test with Collabora is bumping along14:22
stevel_needs some cycles post Seoul14:23
paulsherwoodi think we all do :)14:23
gunnarxok, I haven't seen results.14:23
gunnarxor much mail on mailing lists.  what exactly the test is doing etc.14:23
paulsherwoodgmacario: GoCD has nothing specific for automated test... it can trigger something, though14:24
gmacarioOK, ACK14:24
stevel_Sjoerd has the board but had some questions14:24
stevel_gunnarx: jeremiah documented the scope in the wiki14:24
paulsherwoodgunnarx: i believe agl is making some progress with ltsi test framework14:24
gunnarxstevel_:  ok, thanks.14:25
stevel_small scale in terms of tests, more about the plumbing and creating a pattern14:26
gunnarxdoes ltsi test framework overlap or complement lava?  optimized for kernel test or more generic?14:26
paulsherwooddo we (genivi, tools team) have any clear view of what approach/framework(s) we favour here?14:26
stevel_I think sjoerd got hung up on upstream. I need to check in with him14:27
paulsherwoodwhat does 'hung up on upstream' mean? :)14:27
gunnarxas far as I understand lava does what we need.  but it might take that someone just "does it" with their favorite tool.  kinda like go.cd14:27
stevel_gunnarx: ltsi test complements somewhat. they are gathering test cases with initially kernel focus. jenkins is just the framework14:28
stevel_An instance is running in the open. Take a look their, LF LTSI workgroup wiki and the LTSI ML for Qs14:29
stevel_or instance?14:29
gunnarx"An instance is running in the open".  Wiki or instance doesn't matter.  I suspect wiki would give the needed info.14:30
* paulsherwood proposes to move on?14:30
paulsherwoodunless there are actions from this?14:31
stevel_ltsi main page:
* stevel_ no not that crap14:32
pavelkLTSI test project:
gunnarxnice logo14:32
gunnarxno worries, I'll find it now, thanks14:32
stevel_test project:
paulsherwoodi found that page, couldn't find a public instance running, though... didn't look very hard14:32
stevel_various members are some running in house and I seem to recall some tests posted on the list.14:33
paulsherwoodthat's a rather different thing, stevel_ :)14:33
gunnarxpropose to move on14:33
paulsherwood- AOB -14:34
paulsherwoodany suggrstions for AOB? i have one14:34
gmacarioPlease go ahead14:34
paulsherwoodtools/bit again14:34
stevel_then there was the prototype that is still running. Think they have been still adding to it. Would need to dig out url. should be in the wiki or conf ppts14:34
paulsherwoodstevel_: we've discusses this before, but i'm not sure what the intention is14:35
stevel_intent for what?14:35
paulsherwoodthe question of whether to somehow combine tools+bit14:36
paulsherwoodthis was raised before amm (not by me)... and there was *some* discussion on it in korea but i'm not sure what's happening14:36
gunnarxI never really saw the need.  Who is the champion for this idea?14:36
* paulsherwood is unsure whether the champion intended to be named as such14:37
stevel_ok. so far I have only seen you bullet from seoul. would be useful to have some detail to grasp onto14:37
gunnarxsounds like an organization question - that's what PMO is for...14:37
stevel_i think they need to define the lack and why there proposed change addresses it14:38
paulsherwoodok, shall we leave it to PMO?14:38
stevel_not that I know what their proposal is :)14:38
gunnarxat least preparing the issue is appropriate for PMO, depending on how much it impacts, there are higher up decision fora.  Groups add/delete have actually been BoD decisions in the past.14:38
paulsherwoodshall we move on, then?14:39
gunnarxdid you drop something on your toe?14:39
paulsherwoodany other any other business?14:40
gunnarx:) no14:40
stevel_none here14:40
paulsherwood== GENIVI Tools Team Meeting Ends ==
  • No labels