Hello Chris,
On 2023-02-08 23:35, Chris Johns wrote:
On 8/2/2023 8:04 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
On 2023-02-07 23:37, Chris Johns wrote:
On 7/2/2023 9:31 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
On 2023-02-07 07:03, Chris Johns wrote:
On 30/1/2023 10:12 pm, Christian MAUDERER wrote:
That shouldn't be a pure decision by the one who pays for the work but one that
is (in the optimal case) discussed and specified in the tickets.
I did not know that was happening. I am sorry if you think it is and if I gave
you that impression.
There have been relatively new tickets that changed the status from
"needs-funding" to "funded" nearly without delay. That was a bit surprising for
me.
It seems that the tickets are still updated based on feedback so that is fine
and it's great that someone funded them. It just would have been nice if there
would have been some announcement for two or three days like "Someone wants to
fund the tickets 1, 2 and that part of 4 exactly like they are written now. If
there are big objections with the direction, please speak up now."
I have never seen EB, your employer, make such an announcement about private
commercial in confidence contracts in this way and I would never expect EB to do
that so I think it is outrageous you think you can ask this here like this. The
funding is a private commercial agreement Amar has and it is no different to the
ones your employer makes. Any questions need to be directed to Amar directly but
I suggest the questions should be along of the lines of what you can fund.
Seems that I exaggerated too much. It's a tendency that I have sometimes
as an attempt to be descriptive. I'm sorry if that I haven't been more
careful in my choice of words.
Of course, it's not relevant for the list whether it's paid or not and
who is paying. It doesn't have to have any special form either.
But announcements for changes to the devel list are not unusual in
general. For bigger changes it's often done before the change. Sometimes
vague but it's at least announced (Example: New build system [1], [2],
...). If someone wants to know more or objects the planned changes he
can speak up in these mail threads and concerns can be discussed and in
the worst case a change can be rejected entirely.
For smaller changes everyone just sends patches to the list that are
usually accepted and sometimes rejected if someone objects.
For infrastructure changes, a patch review after it is done isn't
possible. So these are more the big kind of changes that should be
announced with at least a few days time for someone to object or
discuss. Tickets are nice but they are not very visible.
This list is open and public for the project and its community and I will not
tolerant any commercial activity of any type.
Sorry, shouldn't have mentioned "Someone wants to fund ...". The tickets
already had something similar in the comments, so I didn't think that
someone would object as long as it is an anonymous "Someone wants to
fund ..." and not "Company X wants to fund ...".
Regarding the tickets, there are many cases over the years of those providing
services performing services internally, raising tickets and committing changes.
I see no issue here and I am fine with that continuing to happen.
Finally, my understanding of the funded tickets is most of the work is to
rebuild the servers to be current and capable of running modern CI systems, what
ever that ends up being.
Maintenance tasks that keep the systems running are fine without an
announcement. These are a lot of great work that happens behind the
scenes. But these tasks don't change how a user can access the system.
It's great if someone decides to make that work visible too so that
everyone can at least say a "thank you", but it's not necessary.
For tasks that change something fundamental, some public review time
would be nice at least a few days before the work starts. Like said
above: I would see that similar to review time for every patch that is
more or less a suggestion to change something.
I haven't seen that announcement and review time for the tickets that
are already funded. Maybe I missed it and if that is the case it's fully
my fault and I'm sorry that I even started the discussion. On the other
hand all currently funded tickets fall into the category "necessary
maintenance task" so I clearly overreacted to even mention it.
Regarding the commercial aspect: Of course an announcement doesn't have
to happen before a contract is closed - that is something between the
two companies or individuals that close the contract. But like you said
multiple times yourself: It's not a contract that the RTEMS project
closes but one between two unrelated legal entities. So it's still
possible that a community members might object and in the worst case
block the change.
Just to make that clear again: Except for some details (that we are
currently discussing in various mail threads) I'm really happy with what
is happening so let's hope that no one objects the new infrastructure.
Best regards
Christian
At the moment I don't need all tickets from my point of view. But there are no
tickets that I would see as a problem. So again: I'm happy that our system will
get better.
Thank you the positive feed back, it is appreciated. The process is not perfect
and what can be achieved is limited but things are moving and changing and that
is encouraging.
Chris
[1] https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-September/055742.html
[2] https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2019-October/055809.html
--
--------------------------------------------
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Christian MAUDERER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: christian.maude...@embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 18
mobile: +49-176-152 206 08
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
