Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
toscalix== GENIVI Tools Meeting week 03 Jan 20th 2016 ==10:00
toscalixChair today: Agustin Benito (toscalix)10:00
toscalixTime: 1 hour10:00
toscalixAgenda10:00
toscalixUpdate action items: https://at.projects.genivi.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=8&view=detail&selectedIssue=TOOL-610:00
toscalixObjectives for  2016Q110:00
toscalixAOB10:00
toscalixAny other topic that cannot be part of AOB that we should discuss?10:00
gmacarioHi there again! Nothing more from myself10:00
toscalix510:01
toscalix410:01
toscalix310:01
toscalix210:01
toscalix110:01
toscalixok....10:01
toscalixUpdate Action Items10:01
toscalixI created a Kanban Board for this group10:01
toscalixand put the backlog into review state, so we can go through them now10:01
toscalixthe goals is to move those either to ToDo or to In progress if there is somebody that will execute it, including a soft deadline so I can keep track of when I should include them10:02
toscalixin the agenda here10:02
toscalixlet's go for the first one, GDP-610:03
toscalixdiscuss Franca/Franca_installation_automation relationship10:03
toscalixAny taker?10:03
*** samuli has quit IRC10:03
gmacarioGDP-6?10:04
toscalixsorry :-)10:04
toscalixTool-610:04
toscalixhttps://at.projects.genivi.org/jira/browse/TOOL-610:04
gunnarxcatching up... going to fast... :)10:04
toscalixsorry...will slow down10:04
*** samuli has joined #automotive10:05
*** philrob has joined #automotive10:05
gunnarxI had also created a general Tools Kanban board (rapidView=6).  I will delete it.  I thought boards were visible in the "Boards" menu automatically, but no, only when you have visited it once10:05
gunnarxSo rapidView=8 it is.10:06
toscalixhttps://at.projects.genivi.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=810:06
toscalixyes10:06
gunnarxNext, checking the query being used10:06
gunnarxok, same as I have, not including the CIAT issues10:07
gunnarxOK I have caught up now :)10:07
gunnarxWe can look at Go-specific board after we're done with Tools board, OK?10:08
*** fredcadete_ has joined #automotive10:08
toscalixok. I was asking about Tool-610:08
gunnarxyes10:08
toscalixIf there is no taker....let's move on10:08
gunnarxWas assigned to klaus birken10:08
gunnarxis klaus here?10:09
gunnarxIt's right now an open question to Klaus basically, I would suggest assigning him again, and pinging him if there is no progress...10:09
toscalixit seems no... I will ping him10:09
toscalixNext one is Tool-1110:09
*** fredcadete has quit IRC10:10
toscalixEnsure any hosting/publishing of images meets LRT requirements10:10
toscalixI take that one since it is related to the work we are doing at GDP10:10
toscalixI will provide a soft deadline after the meeting10:11
gunnarxok10:11
philrobKlaus is travelling this week (PST)10:11
toscalixNext one... Tool-1210:11
gunnarxhang on toscalix .10:11
gunnarxthe labels on tool-11?10:11
toscalixok10:11
gunnarxcont_integration <- are we using that10:11
toscalixyes... some labels are being used already. There is a labels catalogue that is being used by GDP10:12
gunnarxcurrently "CIAT" means Go-server related issues basically.  I was meaning to discuss that when we talk about that Kanban board.10:12
gunnarxcatalogue on wiki?10:12
toscalixI have as action item together with joel to create a general catalogue10:12
toscalixWiki page:10:12
gunnarxok10:12
toscalixhttps://at.projects.genivi.org/wiki/display/GDP/GENIVI+Demo+Platform+maintenance+management#GENIVIDemoPlatformmaintenancemanagement-Labelscatalogue10:13
gunnarxI propose don't use the label "compliance" in the meaning "FOSS license compliance", not in GENIVI where it has another meaning :)10:13
toscalixwe need a catalogue to ensure two people do not use different labels for the same thing...in JIRA and Confluence10:14
gmacariotoscalix: +110:14
toscalixgunnarx: good point10:14
gunnarxok thanks for the wiki link10:14
gmacarioAnd possible fewer instance of JIRA and Confluence :P10:15
gunnarx"compliance" is not listed in the catalogue so we're ok10:15
toscalixshould we go for Tools 12 now?10:15
gunnarxPropose to add "license_compliance"?10:15
toscalixwill add it.10:15
philrob+110:15
gunnarxadded.  ok tool-1210:16
gunnarxcan someone email the question out to mailing lists?10:17
toscalixI added an issue about it10:17
toscalixI take it10:18
gunnarx? isn't tool-12 the issue?10:18
gunnarxyou add a subtask to do something to fulfil tool-12 :-)10:18
toscalixtool-38 about the label10:19
toscalixah, wait, the mail question is about Tool-12, ok, sorry10:19
toscalixSo tools-12 is about opening the discussion in a wider forum?10:20
toscalixcan we assign to somebody to make a proposal about this or to drive the discussion?10:20
gunnarxtoscalix: 10:16 <gunnarx> added. ok tool-1210:20
gunnarxadded means I already added the license_compliance label to the wiki page.10:20
gunnarxwe work fast here :)10:20
toscalix:-)10:21
toscalixhow it should be10:21
toscalixwho takes the responsibility of driving the discussion about Tool-12?10:21
toscalixlet's move on then10:22
toscalixTool-1410:22
toscalixchoose code review approach for go.cd pipelines...10:22
toscalixCodethink is testing the plugin gerrti-go.cd10:22
toscalixgerrit10:22
gunnarxmakes sense to me10:23
toscalixbut that is just one tool10:23
toscalixThe idea of the issue is to explore other options too10:23
gunnarxWell gerrit provides code review as we know10:23
gunnarxWhen it comes to go, what you want is to build proposed patches... usually done by integrating gerrit with the build tool10:24
toscalixAs soon as we get to valid conclusions we will bring them here10:24
gunnarxif you want alternatives, provide commit access to a repo to anyone.  proposed patches go to a branch, the branch is built by build tool the normal way10:24
gunnarxreporting on the result... either ask submitters to manually monitor build tool...  there are also desktop widgets for build status10:25
toscalixSo we can go back to this issue when we bring our results. Are you ok with this?10:25
gunnarxwell that's the alternative I can come up with atm10:25
gunnarxSure.  But how?  Email a request for feedback then?10:25
toscalixI will include it in the issue itself10:25
toscalixyou can watch it so you get notified10:26
toscalixthen we decide how to proceed (mail...or call)10:26
gunnarxok10:27
*** pavelk has joined #automotive10:27
gunnarxwelcome pavelk, tools meeting ongoing :)10:27
pavelkgreat!10:27
toscalixNext one then... Tool-2210:27
gunnarxpavelk : https://at.projects.genivi.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=810:27
toscalixBuild DLT-Viewer10:28
gunnarxThat one should have the go label10:28
gunnarxActually it does have it, but it has one more label so the query includes it10:28
toscalixadding it10:28
gunnarxwhich it shouldn't10:28
toscalixah, ok10:28
gunnarxbut I don't know how to write that query better either, I tried10:28
toscalixlabels in capital letters is not a good idea with this tool since it is case sensitive10:29
gunnarxcan't find a useful way to query on "includes" a label, only "equal to"10:29
gunnarxit is?10:29
toscalixyep10:29
gunnarxI just followed Paul's lead :)10:29
toscalixthis tools needs management10:29
toscalixpower comes with a price10:30
gunnarxok, well anyhow, skip tool-22, we'll take it in the Go review10:30
toscalixok10:30
toscalixTool-2410:30
toscalixAs you probably know, we are working on having simple acceptance tests in GDP10:31
toscalixbut that is just a little aspect.10:31
pavelktoscalix: what framework do you use?10:31
toscalixnone10:31
stevel_I plan to reconnect with Collabora on use of their LAVA farm in coming weeks10:31
toscalixwe will go for scripts at the beginning10:31
pavelkOK, are there any sample available?10:32
toscalixnot yet10:32
toscalixwe are still working on making the images available to then check licenses10:32
gunnarxfor deploying/running tests there's LAVA, or as said before we could investigate JTA10:32
toscalixsomebody needs to take ownership of this tasks and bring a proposal10:33
stevel_At very least JTA should have some test cases10:33
toscalixor at least move this topic forward10:33
stevel_Happy to take sub-task to work with collabora on LAVA10:33
gunnarxfor writing the test code there are different contributions from different companies.  If a company writing a component has their own preferred way they won't change, but normally it's possible to run and collect results from different ones.10:33
gunnarxFor newly written component tests I'd cast a vote for gtest (google test)10:34
toscalixstevel_: can you add the subtask yourself?10:34
stevel_Sure if you want.10:34
toscalixgo ahead please10:34
stevel_I was assuming lead wanted to be one to add. But I can do :)10:34
toscalixthis is not "my kanban" but ours :-)10:34
toscalixgreat, thank you10:35
toscalixNext one is Tool-2710:35
stevel_Viva Freedom!10:35
toscalixMapping of Franca IDL constants to the UML model missing in YAMAICA10:36
pavelkTools-27 looks more like a feature request for Yamaica10:36
pavelk...and as such into their issue tracker10:36
gunnarxwhich means bugzilla?  until migration is completed?10:37
pavelkI don't know what they currently use10:37
toscalixwho is the main contact for YAMAICA?10:37
gunnarxhttp://bugs.genivi.org/buglist.cgi?product=Franca%20Tooling&component=YAMAICAea&resolution=---&list_id=383610:37
gmacarioAccording to http://projects.genivi.org/yamaica/community this is http://bugs.genivi.org/buglist.cgi?product=Franca%20Tooling&component=YAMAICA and http://bugs.genivi.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=Franca%20Tooling10:37
pavelkI suspect this is Manfred Bathelt10:38
gmacarioMain contacts are Manfred Bathelt and Juergen Gehring - See http://projects.genivi.org/yamaica/contact-us10:38
gunnarxyes and Manfred is the default assignee on a new bugzilla10:38
toscalixthanks gmacario Then I will contact them so see how they want to handle this request10:39
gunnarxWe should just transfer it to bugzilla I suppose?10:39
toscalixThat is my thought but since we are migrating...let's see.10:40
toscalixI will contact them first, just in case10:40
toscalixok?10:40
gmacarioYes and BTW I see zero bugs in Bugzilla so far10:40
gunnarxtoscalix, these tools issues we're discussing, they are for driving tools forward10:40
gunnarxbug reports go to specific projects I assume, not to tools project?10:41
gunnarx^^ bug and feature requests10:41
toscalixexactly, but seems it was added here as action item, I want to make sure we close it properly10:41
gmacarioOne suggestion for driving tools forward is speeding up killing old tools10:41
toscalixgmacario: I hope that is the outcome of this10:42
toscalix:-)10:42
gunnarxso as I see it, bugs will in the future go into JIRA but under a different project, but at the moment bugzilla still being used for the bugs10:42
toscalixin GDP we are about to stop using bugzilla for bugs, moving them to JIRA and making a note in every open bug10:43
toscalixwe are still talking about how to do that10:43
gunnarxif you agree then I suggest to transfer TOOL-27 to bugzilla, but of course toscalix, if you feel like sending an email you cna10:43
toscalixwe will publish a mail about it10:43
toscalixand talk to Joel10:43
gunnarxunfortunately the original requesting person has been lost in various moves between systems, because I assume it's not a feature request from paulsherwood10:43
toscalixSince this is the first time I go through this, I prefer to talk to them first instead of putting a feature request directly in bugzilla10:44
philrobseems wise10:44
toscalixbut the default behaviour should be to go to whatever tool they are using ... yes10:44
gunnarxit's up to you, but I don't see it10:44
gunnarxbut yes, since you will look like the person requesting, it might be weird to just put it in bugzilla10:45
gunnarxpavelk, are you or could you be a champion for this feature request?10:45
pavelkWhich one? Tools-27?10:46
toscalixI propose myself to do it10:46
gunnarxtoscalix, again up to you, but there is really no need to agree that bugs/feature requests are reported in bugzilla.  this is already the process.  maintainers _should_ expect to get them10:46
gunnarxand react to them.10:46
toscalixagree10:46
gunnarximho10:46
toscalixI just do not know them so...10:46
gunnarxpavelk, yes tool-27, just looking for a champion10:46
gunnarxbecause I don't know who made the request originally10:46
toscalixI have a lot in my plate, if pavelk takes it over...I will be happy10:47
toscalix13 min to go10:47
pavelkI don't use Yamaica, but can move the request to Bugzilla10:47
toscalixpavelk: assigned. Thank you10:48
toscalixTool-2910:48
pavelktoscalix: skipping Tools-28?10:48
toscalixit has assignee10:49
pavelkAh, OK10:49
toscalixI am concentrating right now in those that don't10:49
toscalixthat is, the ones I am as assignee10:49
pavelkUnderstood10:49
gunnarxtool-29 was more of a tools team charter thing, goal setting, working towards better / wider tool testing on multiple platforms10:49
pavelkIt overlaps with Tool-24...10:50
*** kooltux_ has quit IRC10:50
toscalixI think that we need somebody that put some though in testing and drive a discussion that leads into a proposal10:50
toscalixso we merge all this issues into a single one10:50
gunnarxtool-24 is a little more focused.10:50
toscalixyes10:50
gunnarxI could bring the question to YAMAICA team but then the general goal setting would be lost10:51
pavelkgunnarx: so tool-24 is a subissue of tool-29?10:51
gunnarxdon't know10:51
toscalixI would say so. We can put it as sub-task10:51
gunnarxtoscalix, maybe worth thinking about how to organize tool team higher-level goals, compared to actions10:51
toscalixthe second point for today was.... 2016Q1 goals10:52
gunnarx:)10:52
toscalixwe will have no time...but yes10:52
gunnarxI can own tool-29 if you want, but it's a long term goal thing10:52
toscalixlet's leave the testing topic for that discussion?10:52
gunnarxok10:53
philrobwe discussed with Manfred how to recycle the CommonAPI C++ test suite in the context of CIAT, Manfred was requested to provide Jenkins job configuration to enable more analysis10:53
pavelkIt looks like tool-29 is more about testing the /tools/, while tools-24 is about a tool for testing10:53
gunnarxpavelk, you are right10:53
toscalixphilrob: I would appreciate if you add a comment on the task itself describing what was discussed, or a link we can follow, at least10:53
philrobwill do10:53
toscalixphilrob: thanks10:54
toscalixTool-29...we skip it for now10:54
gunnarxphilrob, jenkins job for building is not really necessary, we already build commonapi tools on go server.  but if it is for testing, yes10:54
toscalixTool-3010:54
toscalixSeems a reminder note from a previous meeting10:55
gunnarxoh, another big lofty goal :)10:55
toscalixI wonder if any of you remember an action item out of this discussion10:55
pavelkthere are some initial thought on the (private) wiki10:55
toscalixIt is stated as Improvement10:55
gunnarxI have much outstanding work to do so I shouldn't take this on...10:55
toscalixWhat I would reuqet then is an Asignee to move it forward or leave it as it is for now10:56
gunnarxbut a picture outlining goals for target vs host dev environment would help communication a lot10:56
toscalixs/reuquet/request10:56
toscalixgunnarx: if you are too busy, I prefer to leave it as it is than having it in the backlog forever10:57
toscalixsince it will increase the Tolls team management cost to add it to the backlog (ToDo)10:57
pavelktoscalix: the earlier strategy was to find volunteers to document their ways to build components for GEnIVI10:57
gunnarxwell it relates to things we must do imho10:57
toscalixunderstood10:58
toscalixany taker to move this forward?10:58
*** jonathanmaw_ has joined #automotive10:58
toscalix2 min left...10:58
gunnarxno but I'll add some comment to clarify next steps10:58
*** jonathanmaw_ has quit IRC10:59
toscalixthat is a step forward, thanks10:59
*** jonathanmaw_ has joined #automotive10:59
toscalixlats one.... Tool-3110:59
toscalixTest Eclipse Automotive release as basis for franca_install_automation instead of Eclipse DSL release10:59
toscalixany taker to move this issue forward?11:00
pavelkSomebody remembers who was the originator?11:00
gunnarxme11:00
gunnarxI wanted Klaus to help me out on it.11:00
gunnarxgive me a sec11:00
pavelkIn my rough understanding, Eclipse Automotive has a different scope, but this is to be verified11:01
gunnarxok, info from trello is not moved over.  so we follow the Trello link to get the status?11:02
pavelkEclipse DSL is for tools developers.  Eclipse automotive seems to be for automotive software developers11:02
gmacarioI need to leave now. Talk to you soon!11:02
*** jonathanmaw has quit IRC11:02
toscalixgmacario: thanks11:02
pavelkthe task might be then about packaging franca and CAPI tools for Eclipse Automotive11:03
gunnarxIt's simply whethere franca_install_automation should be based on Eclipse Automotive or not11:04
pavelkOh, I take it back: "The EAIWG will define and maintain the requirements, a technical architecture and a roadmap that defines a common platform for the development and management tools required for the automotive electronic development processes. "11:04
toscalixgunnarx: is it ok to put this in your plate so next week you report your conversation with Klaus?11:04
gunnarxI've not been able to get good input from creators of Eclipse Automotive, which I believe is Klaus' company11:04
gunnarxtoscalix, yes, assign me11:04
toscalixok11:04
gunnarxand I'll assign klaus, or kill it :)11:04
philrobassign it to klaus11:05
toscalixSo we are done. 5 min past11:05
toscalixsorry for the delay11:05
toscalixwe will finish here11:05
toscalix511:06
toscalix411:06
toscalix311:06
toscalix211:06
toscalix111:06
toscalix== GENIVI Tools Meeting End ==