Hi Joakim,
Thanks for the feedback. My comments below.
I'm not sure I'm fully convinced about that, but if CI/CD/testing have been configured to have good support for LTS-branches, then the actual and manual work is mostly doing the actual backporting. Aiming for an automated process is a good goal.
[VW] Yes, we aim to enable the CI/CD/Testing process for LTS branches. The aim is also for an automated process to take a first stab at the backporting. Only if it fails, will we need manual intervention.
I'm pretty sure that from time to time there will be fixes that for some reason need to pull in features as well, mainly as a dependency
[VW] Do you have an example? But in general, we should look at each situation case by case. Although the guidance has been drawn for the first release, we are aware that the criteria will and has to evolve over time.
I think there needs to be some kind of deadline for downstream testing. If not met, then that platform shouldn't be considered as up-to-date for a LTS. I think this is what you also had in mind with "a pre-defined window".
[VW] That's right. We want to introduce a deadline to avoid the problem you faced. We want to increase interest and support for all platforms, but don't want to penalize some due to slow response from others.
I've touched upon it before, but maybe time for putting together TF.org build(s) that builds (and tests) all projects under the TrustedFirmware umbrella?
[VW] I'm afraid, I don't understand. Can you please elaborate? Are you proposing something on the line of the TrustedSubstrate project?
If the "large part of the process can be automated" holds up, then I'd guess that the same kind of testing could (and should) be done.
[VW] That's the end goal - release LTS and normal release at the same time.
Thanks, Varun
-----Original Message----- From: Joakim Bech joakim.bech@linaro.org Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 10:37 AM To: Okash Khawaja okash@google.com Cc: tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org; tsc@lists.trustedfirmware.org; Varun Wadekar vwadekar@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [TF-TSC] Finally, a TF-A LTS Proposal!
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Hi Okash, Varun, all,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 06:48:42PM +0100, Okash Khawaja via TSC wrote:
TL;DR: Attached is the TF-A LTS proposal doc. Please review and share your thoughts.
Hello everyone,
Long term support for TF-A has a long history. As a community we have flirted with it for a while, and like any flirtation, it started with gossip -- in our case, over mailing list [1] -- more than two years ago. Then Varun Wadekar did a wonderful tech forum presentation [2] which demonstrated interest in the topic and raised interesting questions about LTS.
After some time, the affair lost headline status, only to be revived again [3], earlier this year. This time however, there is a formal proposal (no pun intended). After the mailing list discussion and feedback from TF-A tech forum [4], we have put together a draft which attempts to give a concrete idea about what the TF-A LTS will look like.
Please spare some time to read through it and share your feedback. The plan is to put LTS into action this November.
Thanks for putting this together, much appreciated. Some comments from me/Linaro.
Criteria: -------- - "large parts of the process can be automated" I'm not sure I'm fully convinced about that, but if CI/CD/testing have been configured to have good support for LTS-branches, then the actual and manual work is mostly doing the actual backporting. Aiming for an automated process is a good goal.
- "No features will be backported" As for the criteria I believe your suggestion makes a lot of sense. Even though I do agree with the "No features will be backported", I'm pretty sure that from time to time there will be fixes that for some reason need to pull in features as well, mainly as a dependency. Perhaps we could change the sentence slightly to indicate that we generally don't want to backport features, but if a fix depends or is dependant on a feature, then in some cases we might consider backporting features as well. Case by case? TF-TSC people could decide?
Lifetime and frequency: ---------------------- I support your suggestions and motivations.
Testing Criteria / 4.Platform tests: ----------------------------------- Although I support this, I can see foresee that this most likely will be challenging. I'm talking from my experience as an OP-TEE maintainer. As the amount of platforms supported grew, it became harder and harder to get the platform maintainers finding time and helping out with testing release candidates on their own devices/platforms. We have tried a couple of different things, like using stop lights in the docs, keeping tested platforms "green", the ones that hasn't been tested recently "orange" and the rest "red". However, we abandoned that, since it was a lot of work to keep track of it. Instead we simply just keep track of the tested platforms in the git release tag. I.e., we list all platforms tested both by the core maintainers as well as external platform maintainers. Sub-optimal, but keeps a track record and keeps things moving. Here I'm mainly talking about platforms found upstream. In your suggestion you're talking about platforms that are not maintained upstream, which in my opinion makes things even more complicated.
In short, I do support something like this, but I think there needs to be some kind of deadline for downstream testing. If not met, then that platform shouldn't be considered as up-to-date for a LTS. I think this is what you also had in mind with "a pre-defined window".
TFTF branching and others gits: ------------------------------ I agree with the need to "LTS tag" TFTF and potentially other projects as well. I.e., as Joanna indicated, enabling LTS in TF-A might force us to add LTS branches in the other TF.org gits as well. I've touched upon it before, but maybe time for putting together TF.org build(s) that builds (and tests) all projects under the TrustedFirmware umbrella?
Example timeline: ---------------- - "Note that here we don't allow the extra testing and debugging time that we had between Nov 2022 and early Feb 2023. This is because there isn't as much to test and debug as an annual LTS release has."
I think this is related to my comment further up. If the "large part of the process can be automated" holds up, then I'd guess that the same kind of testing could (and should) be done.
Maintainership: -------------- In short LTS doesn't come for free, so in some way it needs to be funded. Carving out LTS work from existing work as a maintainer can be challenging and a lot of maintainers spend time on other "internal" tasks and use cases as well.
- "A day in the life of a maintainer" I guess this sections justify my doubts that "large parts of the process can be automated".
Execution Plan: -------------- +1
Future plans: ------------ Agree, it's hard to make a bulletproof strategy, but having a strategy capturing most of the things is a lot better than having no strategy at all.
Again, thanks for putting together the proposal, it's a good proposal.
Cheers! Okash
[1] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.trustedfirmware.org%2Farchives%2Fsearch%3Fmlist%3Dtf-a%2540lists.tru stedfirmware.org%26q%3D%255BTF-A%255D%2BATF%2BLTS%2Bversion&data=0 5%7C01%7Cvwadekar%40nvidia.com%7C2e60e0205ed040554ad408da7b7d001e%7C43 083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637958074486673316%7CUnknown% 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z7%2FJNwIGWVAXBNXLNPr5ZGSo558XlB% 2FiEW4UIPHR9L4%3D&reserved=0 [2] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. trustedfirmware.org%2Fdocs%2FTF-A-LTS.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cvwadekar% 40nvidia.com%7C2e60e0205ed040554ad408da7b7d001e%7C43083d15727340c1b7db 39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637958074486673316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000% 7C%7C%7C&sdata=42hoFTBXh702PcZya9ZcMYWL8V2CG4Y5LUGmf3pjQc4%3D& reserved=0 [3] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist s.trustedfirmware.org%2Farchives%2Flist%2Ftf-a%40lists.trustedfirmware .org%2Fthread%2FZZ2DDIW2DS4B7QYHYOL7XE4IPUW7LUNT%2F&data=05%7C01%7 Cvwadekar%40nvidia.com%7C2e60e0205ed040554ad408da7b7d001e%7C43083d1572 7340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637958074486673316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0% 3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QjLiQizT6m3VgqblAudtwA%2FQAq%2BcU4vdWJiBL VWTz00%3D&reserved=0 [4] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. trustedfirmware.org%2Fdocs%2FTForg_LTS_proposal.pdf&data=05%7C01%7 Cvwadekar%40nvidia.com%7C2e60e0205ed040554ad408da7b7d001e%7C43083d1572 7340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637958074486673316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0% 3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=g2kYD%2F%2FxStAkqxIppPYjp8rUF0vBF6T2zz9ZW USNSEE%3D&reserved=0
-- TSC mailing list -- tsc@lists.trustedfirmware.org To unsubscribe send an email to tsc-leave@lists.trustedfirmware.org
// Regards, Joakim