I'm not sure Jenkins should be the responsibility of the QA Function. Build System Maintainer may take it. I'm happy to discuss about Build System Maintainer on the next ISG meeting. Before everything clean up, let me handle it at least for this release.
Currently more than 15 build configuration exists and each has more than 8 build works. It is required to reduce the number of Build Flag which makes code dirty and generate build break possibility. BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:39 AM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; 'Dave Thaler' Subject: Re: [dev] Request to revert the merged patches(#11227,#10743) On ter?a-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 11:34:31 PDT ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > I meant SCM manager. > SConscript, build flagand Jenkins configuration need to be managed > carefully. Script template or enhancement also needs to be done. > Doxygen also need to be cared. I'm not sure I would put all those responsibilities under one person. Jenkins is already the responsibility of the QA Function. As for Scons and the buildsystem, we can have someone. But since this is technical and related to the source code, I would suggest calling this person the Build System Maintainer, and grant this person +2 rights too. I also think we need to reduce the number of configuration permutations. It's putting a strain on the Jenkins servers and leaving a lot of options insufficiently tested. We should come up with the official "recommended" build options and make that the default, then we should find out which options we want to turn on or off, compared to the baseline default. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
