I think there's an "n" missing in "Hafnium" in your mock.
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:07 AM Bill Fletcher via TSC <
tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At the previous TF TSC we had an action to work on the TF.org website.
> Here is a mock up of a new website front page, and also a possible graphics
> template for an example per-project "mini-site" in the attached PDF. It
> could be useful to stimulate some discussion. The other piece of the puzzle
> is a schema representing all the data/links per project so we can have
> consistent links to content across the mini-sites. A mock up of this schema
> looks like this:
>
> Projects Schema:
>
> Project Title
> Project Description
> Project Documentation
> Project Code
> Project Mailing List
> Project Call to Actions
> Project Code Review
> Project Useful Links
>
> Any comments ahead of the meeting are welcome.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
> *Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
> T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
> bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
>
> --
> TSC mailing list
> TSC(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>
Hi all,
At the previous TF TSC we had an action to work on the TF.org website. Here
is a mock up of a new website front page, and also a possible graphics
template for an example per-project "mini-site" in the attached PDF. It
could be useful to stimulate some discussion. The other piece of the puzzle
is a schema representing all the data/links per project so we can have
consistent links to content across the mini-sites. A mock up of this schema
looks like this:
Projects Schema:
Project Title
Project Description
Project Documentation
Project Code
Project Mailing List
Project Call to Actions
Project Code Review
Project Useful Links
Any comments ahead of the meeting are welcome.
Regards
Bill
--
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
*Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
Hi all,
On 5/5/20 9:04 AM, Sandrine Bailleux via TF-A wrote:
> I've received very little feedback on version 2 of the proposal, which
> hints that we are reaching an agreement. Thus, I plan to finalize the
> proposal this week. This can then become part of our development flow
> for all trustedfirmware.org projects.
>
> Thanks again for all the inputs!
The project maintenance process is now live. The document has been moved
here (with a few minor edits to turn it from a proposal to an effective
process):
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p…
Thanks!
Regards,
Sandrine
Hi all,
I've received very little feedback on version 2 of the proposal, which
hints that we are reaching an agreement. Thus, I plan to finalize the
proposal this week. This can then become part of our development flow
for all trustedfirmware.org projects.
Thanks again for all the inputs!
Regards,
Sandrine Bailleux
Attendees
Ruchika Gupta (NXP)
Andrej Butok (NXP)
Abhishek Pandit (Arm)
Kevin Townsend (Linaro)
Joakim Bech (Linaro)
Christian Daudt (Cypress/Infineon)
Eric FInco (ST)
Julius Werner (Google)
Mark Grosen (TI)
Bill Mills (TI)
David Brown (Linaro)
Bill Fletcher (Linaro Community Projects)
Actions
AbhishekP: Action to follow up on TF hosting released PSA specification
AbhishekP: Action to check with Shebu if the roadmap included 1.0
BillF: Action to storyboard/mock up web page for next TSC
BillF: Action to check how to prepare the support of some member’s boards
in CI and come back to CD/EF
KevinT: Action/semi-volunteering to put some road-signs for helping people
moving from gitHub to gerrit
AbhishekP: Action to put the gerrit/GitHub issue on the agenda for next time
Notes
JB: Some practicalities around:
- Our mailinglists, Bill have created/enabled some already and I have a
discussion with Linux kernel developers regarding mailinglist for TEE
kernel discussions. I can give a 2 minute update on this.
- OP-TEE transition, I've tried to clean-up and redirect everything from
Linaro to TrustedFirmware.org. Yet another 2 minute update.
BF: All lists have been created - see TF.org/contact for all (public ones)
JB: Suggested there should also be a tee mailing list in the kernel.
DB: Vger list?
JB: yes
JB: also cleaned up OP-TEE.org to use new mailing list and mention trusted
firmware where relevant
AP: Maybe we need an ‘all’ mailing list for process, otherwise getting 3
mails every time?
DB: In the kernel people are good at cross posting.
CD: Suggest to wait if there are more of these things and see if we need a
top level list
DB: May be unintended consequences.
AP: Leave it for now
JB: Bill also created op-tee-security list. Need to describe membership/use
DB: Has been done for Zephyr.
JB: Not the same as what was agreed with Dan
JB: Sandrine's maintainer / process proposal, do we want to have a
follow-up discussion?
AP: Was a special TF-A Tech Forum call last week. Has incorporated the
suggestions from the list and forum. Would anyone want us not to formalize
it?
CD: In principle?
AP: Sandrine published the updates she got. Suggest she finalises with each
contributor rather than continuing to blast it to the list.
EF: -Some time ago, you asked for feedback on trustedfirmware.org website
and BillF created a wiki document to capture comments =
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/website/ I have
edited it with some comments and proposals.
EF: could have per project logos routing people to mini-sites per project
AP: Initial project landing pages often have member logos.
EF: Dashboard is confusing - not analytics. Also different between TF-A and
TF-M. Docs and wiki - not sure people visiting will understand the
difference.
EF: TF-M Wiki page is good. Could be mini-site entry point.
AP: Was looking at Apache since has multiple projects too
CD: Agree that the slicing is not good at the moment. People typically
coming in for a specific project. First item for each one could be a ‘start
here’ like Eric pointed out for TF-M
DB: Don’t want drop downs need to be clicked on - should just select by
hovering.
AB: The PSA Specification is still under Arm. Also requires registration
and doesn’t inform you if there’s a new version. Could it be moved to
TF.org?
AP: Will check with Arm
BF: Not sure we can host it
CD: It’s a public spec - so could host a copy
AP: release versions could be ok but draft versions may be via a closed
channel
AP: Action to follow up on TF hosting released PSA specification
BF: Action to storyboard/mock up web page for next TSC
EF: Furthermore, last time Dan proposed to discussed the tools used by the
projects (git, gerrit phabricator) and I see a link with the web site
improvement topic so if members of the TSC agree we may start discussing
this in today TSC
AP: Phabricator is becoming an overhead. Would be good if it was more based
on Sphinx/git. But some people do like the wiki.
RG: Any plans to shift op-tee from github to tf.org.
JB: Depends who - for me no.
RG: Expect any change?
DB: Gerrit seems to do better with long patch chains
JB: A lot of new stuff is being added on GitHub.
KT: Burden for new people getting a first patch in using Gerrit
CD: Standard ramp up for a new tool.
DB: But many more people using GitHub
KT: Could do a better job in the documentation (semi-volunteering to put
some road-signs)
AP: Put the gerrit/GitHub issue on the agenda for next time?
EF: As now the budget for the next phase to TF OpenCI has been voted, do we
have an update on the execution plan and further to it how to prepare the
support of some member’s board (Christian and I made raised a question
pointing to it while reviewing Linaro proposal)
BF: Action: will check this explicit step out and come back to CD/EF
AOB:
MG: How was the decision made to say TF-M is at 1.0?
AP: Think it was related to PSA specification.
MG: What’s the criteria for what is a version release?
AP: Action: Will check with Shebu since this would be published as the
roadmap. He joins the board but not the TSC. Think the roadmap included 1.0.
MG: Are we going to have a process for doing a release -
quality/features/bugs/benchmarks. Should be documented and reviewed before
a release.
JB: If nothing else need some kind of checklist so that it’s possible to
include new people’s participation in a release.
MG: Zephyr project has been looking at this quite a bit. Think we should
document a process for getting a release out. As people look at using this
in production.
AP: Cross-TF?
MG: Prefer not to do it 5 times (for each subproject). At least a baseline
common across projects.
JB: This is what exists for the OP-TEE project, we wanted to make some kind
of "checklist" at some point also, to actually check off various items:
https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/general/releases.html#release-proced…
CD: There is the aspect what is the feature set - shebu has been putting it
together but don’t think we have a feature set to discuss/steer. i.e. what
is important. This is orthogonal to the release process checklist. Some
people sidestep this with a periodic release - either it made the release
or it didn’t.
EF: Semantic versioning?
AP: Was discussed but think we stayed with the TF-A versioning.
JB: Op-TEE follows semantic versioning.
AB: Difficulty to use Zoom from NXP. Have asked for an exception. Was
blocked today. Preference is MS Teams.
JB: Issue to find one tool that works for all. MS Teams is only free ‘for
now’.
BF: Hoping to progress on this in the coming days. Already other ongoing
discussions with NXP with respect to other Linaro meetings.
--
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
*Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
Hi Abhishek,
Sorry for the late feedback.
-Some time ago, you asked for feedback on trustedfirmware.org website and BillF created a wiki document to capture comments = https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/website/ I have edited it with some comments and proposals. Futhermore, last time Dan proposed to discussed the tools used by the projects (git, gerrit phabricator) and I see a link with the web site improvement topic so if members of the TSC agree we may start discussing this in today TSC
-As now the budget for the next phase to TF OpenCI has been voted, do we have an update on the execution plan and further to it how to prepare the support of some member’s board (Christian and I made raised a question pointing to it while reviewing Linaro proposal)
Regards,
Eric Finco
[Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: logo_big5]
Eric FINCO | Tel: +33 (0)2 4402 7154
MDG | Technical Specialist
From: TSC <tsc-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Joakim Bech via TSC
Sent: mercredi 15 avril 2020 17:25
To: Abhishek Pandit <Abhishek.Pandit(a)arm.com>
Cc: tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-TSC] TSC Agenda 16 Apr 2020
Hi Abhishek,
Some practicalities around:
- Our mailinglists, Bill have created/enabled some already and I have a discussion with Linux kernel developers regarding mailinglist for TEE kernel discussions. I can give a 2 minute update on this.
- OP-TEE transition, I've tried to clean-up and redirect everything from Linaro to TrustedFirmware.org. Yet another 2 minute update.
Sandrine's maintainer / process proposal, do we want to have a follow-up discussion?
Regards,
Joakim
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 17:04, Abhishek Pandit via TSC <tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tsc@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote:
Hi All,
Any agenda items for this week’s meeting?
Thanks,
Abhishek
--
TSC mailing list
TSC(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TSC@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
Hi Abhishek,
Some practicalities around:
- Our mailinglists, Bill have created/enabled some already and I have a
discussion with Linux kernel developers regarding mailinglist for TEE
kernel discussions. I can give a 2 minute update on this.
- OP-TEE transition, I've tried to clean-up and redirect everything from
Linaro to TrustedFirmware.org. Yet another 2 minute update.
Sandrine's maintainer / process proposal, do we want to have a follow-up
discussion?
Regards,
Joakim
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 17:04, Abhishek Pandit via TSC <
tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Any agenda items for this week’s meeting?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Abhishek
> --
> TSC mailing list
> TSC(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>
Hi all,
Thanks to all who have commented on this proposal so far. I've edited
the original document to try and incorporate all feedback gathered so
far (through the TSC meeting, this email thread and the TF-A tech call).
Please have another look and flag anything I might have missed:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/project-maintenance-p…
The major changes are:
== Removed concept of self-review ==
This is proving too controversial, several people do not want to allow
self-review.
Roles of maintainer and code owner are still cumulative but cannot be
both exercised for the same patch.
The exact method of dealing with review bottleneck is still to be
decided. In addition to the current proposal of increasing the
maintainers pool, the most popular alternatives mentioned so far are:
- Set a minimum wait time for feedback before a patch can be merged
without any further delay.
- Mandate distinct reviewers for a patch.
== Enhanced the section "Patch contribution Guidelines" ==
Mentioned that patches should be small, on-topic, with comprehensive
commit messages.
== Added a note about how to deal with disagreement ==
If reviewers cannot find a common ground, the proposal is to call out a
3rd-party maintainer.
== Removed "out-of-date" platform state ==
Squashed it into "limited support" to reduce the number of states.
== Removed "orphan" state from platform support life cycle ==
This concept is orthogonal to the level of functionality.
Added a note in the "Code Owner" section instead.
== Per-project guidelines as a complementary document ==
Added a list of things that it would typically cover.
== Added requirement on fully supported platforms to document the
features they support ==
== Added todo mentioning that the proposal might cover branching
strategies in the future ==
The full diff may be seen here:
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/phriction/diff/73/?l=4&r=5
This proposal is still open for discussion at this stage and further
feedback is most welcome!
Regards,
Sandrine
I realise non TF-A people may not have access to session conference details. These can be found here:
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-a/2020-March/000330.html
From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Joanna Farley via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Reply to: Joanna Farley <Joanna.Farley(a)arm.com>
Date: Tuesday, 7 April 2020 at 18:10
To: tf-a <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: "tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>, "tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>, "op-tee(a)linaro.org" <op-tee(a)linaro.org>
Subject: [TF-A] TF-A Tech Forum @ Thu 9 Apr 2020 17:00 - 18:00 (GMT) - Special session on Project Maintenance Proposal for tf.org
Hi All,
The third TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 9th Apr 2020 17:00 - 18:00 (GMT). A reoccurring meeting invite has been sent out to the subscribers of this TF-A mailing list. If you don’t have this please let me know.
For this special session I have also copied the TF-M, TSC and OPTEE mailing lists as the subject may interest the people subscribed to those lists as there is a cross mailing list discussion currently ongoing.
Agenda:
* Overview of the Project Maintenance Proposal for tf.org Projects by Sandrine Bailleux
* Optional TF-A Mailing List Topic Discussions
Thanks
Joanna
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.