Tree maintenance and build nodes
Hi A couple of questions, less technical than usual. Do we have any sample cases of bringing boards back from older branches? I would like to have a branch set up for bringing back some selected AGESA from 4.18 branch. My plan would be to backport features from ToT into said new branch and resolve issues there. Once considered clean enough, it should be a three commit drop (vendorcode, platform, boards) to land on master? Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules? Regards, Kyösti Mälkki
Hi
A couple of questions, less technical than usual.
Do we have any sample cases of bringing boards back from older branches? I would like to have a branch set up for bringing back some selected AGESA from 4.18 branch. My plan would be to backport features from ToT into said new branch and resolve issues there. Once considered clean enough, it should be a three commit drop (vendorcode, platform, boards) to land on master?
Sounds like a reasonable plan.
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules?
I'm willing to put in some time into reviewing this effort. Arthur On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 3:51 PM Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
A couple of questions, less technical than usual.
Do we have any sample cases of bringing boards back from older branches? I would like to have a branch set up for bringing back some selected AGESA from 4.18 branch. My plan would be to backport features from ToT into said new branch and resolve issues there. Once considered clean enough, it should be a three commit drop (vendorcode, platform, boards) to land on master?
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules?
Regards, Kyösti Mälkki _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules?
This is an important question, thank you for that Kyösti. I suspect that the answer will be largely no and that's not very sustainable for maintainability even in the medium term. :\ //Peter
Am 26.04.23 um 14:56 schrieb Peter Stuge:
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules? This is an important question, thank you for that Kyösti.
I suspect that the answer will be largely no and that's not very sustainable for maintainability even in the medium term. :\
Two possible sources of funding come to mind: https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/ https://nlnet.nl/themes/ Regards, Carl-Daniel
Hi, I like to understand what you need. Do you need funding? Or resources for reviews? 9elements is investing quite some time and money in reviewing, keeping the build server up and running, and funding various types of activities. Let me know if we need to help out. Chris Am Mi., 26. Apr. 2023 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net>:
Am 26.04.23 um 14:56 schrieb Peter Stuge:
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules? This is an important question, thank you for that Kyösti.
I suspect that the answer will be largely no and that's not very sustainable for maintainability even in the medium term. :\
Two possible sources of funding come to mind: https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/ https://nlnet.nl/themes/
Regards, Carl-Daniel _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules?
This is an important question, thank you for that Kyösti.
I suspect that the answer will be largely no and that's not very sustainable for maintainability even in the medium term. :\
I guess the answer is largely no, with no response from 4 of the 5 major players in the field. One of the past contributors said he tried to squeeze in tree maintenance work and improving subsystems in between the active projects. But that time slot quickly became a non-existing one with the increased rate of SoC generations and their FSP's appearing. Kyösti
I've missed this discussion but have been linked there from https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/76832 ("util/scripts/restore_agesa.sh - restores the opensource AMD AGESA boards"). Atm I can only volunteer with testing (and I took this "git revert" quest above for my ~1 week spare window only because the success was guaranteed during this limited time) - that testing help will be available since the end of August when I'll return to my hardware. But since the unbricking is easy & quick and I have this FT232H-based "corelogs" adapter - http://dangerousprototypes.com/docs/Corelogs_adapter - I will be able to help greatly! On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:42 AM Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules?
This is an important question, thank you for that Kyösti.
I suspect that the answer will be largely no and that's not very sustainable for maintainability even in the medium term. :\
I guess the answer is largely no, with no response from 4 of the 5 major players in the field. One of the past contributors said he tried to squeeze in tree maintenance work and improving subsystems in between the active projects. But that time slot quickly became a non-existing one with the increased rate of SoC generations and their FSP's appearing.
Kyösti _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
-- Best regards, Mike Banon Open Source Community Manager of 3mdeb - https://3mdeb.com/
Hi Kyösti, I can set up a branch and a builder for this work or you could do it on the existing 4.18 branch. Let me know what you need. The SFC and coreboot should be able to accept donations earmarked for a particular project and pay out those expenses if you were looking to get funding from individuals as well as other sources. I've started a conversation with the SFC about how that would work. Presumably you'd submit an invoice to the SFC and after Stefan, Werner, or David okay it, the SFC would send a wire or mail a check. Note that the SFC does take a percentage of all money sent to coreboot for their overhead, so we don't get 100% of the donations. Take care, Martin Apr 25, 2023, 07:51 by kyosti.malkki@gmail.com:
Hi
A couple of questions, less technical than usual.
Do we have any sample cases of bringing boards back from older branches? I would like to have a branch set up for bringing back some selected AGESA from 4.18 branch. My plan would be to backport features from ToT into said new branch and resolve issues there. Once considered clean enough, it should be a three commit drop (vendorcode, platform, boards) to land on master?
Is there someone (corporate) currently funding or hiring personnel with reviews and tree maintenance as a priority? Is there currently anyone actually assigning from their existing resources to put attention to frameworks, while customers' board ports and resolving their issues have tight schedules?
Regards, Kyösti Mälkki _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 8:28 PM Martin Roth <gaumless@tutanota.com> wrote:
Hi Kyösti, I can set up a branch and a builder for this work or you could do it on the existing 4.18 branch. Let me know what you need.
The latest branch where AGESA boards were present, 4.18 sounds right. Self-approval and submitting even though jenkins flags failures would likely become necessary. I would probably remove all "unnecessary" platforms to ease up the work on builders, so a new branch would be my choice.
The SFC and coreboot should be able to accept donations earmarked for a particular project and pay out those expenses if you were looking to get funding from individuals as well as other sources. I've started a conversation with the SFC about how that would work.
I dont consider SFC as an option. I believe this was discussed with DavidH briefly back in March 2021 -- about the same time when leadership meetings had considered some funding to voluntary reviewers. AFAICS this is merely a theoretical possibility, in practice persons signing/approving invoices towards SFC do not have the resources to participate in the reviews, thus invoices based on hourly rates are sort of not easily measurable when no new features get added. Kyösti
participants (7)
-
Arthur Heymans -
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Christian Walter -
Kyösti Mälkki -
Martin Roth -
Mike Banon -
Peter Stuge