On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 4:01 PM Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lukas
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:12 PM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> (Using the 'New working group proposal template' from
>> https://github.com/elisa-tech/workgroups/blob/61d4beab67c3bc647086b1db41f0434ec2b98b31/new-wg-template.md)
>>
>>
>> Proposed working group name
>>
>> Known Issues for Release Notes Working Group
>>
>> Proposed WG chair
>>
>> tbd.
>>
>> Proposed meeting schedule
>>
>> Let us start with a denser schedule, twice a week to get momentum
>> going. Then once the tasks are clear, we can continue with a shorter
>> meeting every two weeks or so.
>>
>> Specific meeting date and time to be determined by vote among
>> interested participants.
>>
>> Proposed mission statement
>>
>> What is the proposed scope of the workgroup? Will it focus on a
>> specific aspect of the ELISA mission statement, or a specific industry
>> sector or type of safety use case for Linux?
>>
>> The goal of this working group is to produce a collection of known
>> issues of a Linux distribution.
>
> Can you specify what you mean by "known issue"?
> IMO it is a bit vague. For example if you mean bug I could think of
> the kernel bugzilla (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/), if you mean static
> checker violations it could be a different database....
>
>>
>> As an example, we may consider collecting known issues for a few base
>> Debian base packages and the Linux kernel.
>
>
> Right now the focus of ELISA has been the Kernel only (also due to BW
> limitations) whereas here you intend to extend the scope. Correct?

That is correct. As the scope is limited to handling known issues, we
can---even with a small team---probably cover more than just the
kernel; further, the kernel development is certainly the most
challenging upstream project to look into. For the scope extension, I
basically copied the concept of "base packages" from the CIP (Civil
Infrastructure Platform) Project.
They define a "minimal core" by pointing to a few base packages in
Debian; you will probably find (different versions of) those packages
in all other Linux distributions. I just picked Debian as CIP defined
that reference and it is the most 'company-independent' distro as of
now.


> Also here you mention debian packages, that means to go
> looking into a specific distro. It wouldn't be more useful to look
> at the upstream projects that correspond to these packages?
> e.g. glibc - https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ or
>  c++stdlib - https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/ ?
> Otherwise I could point to the Fedora or other free distro specific
> bugzillas...but I am afraid it would steer the WG towards specific
> distros....
>

I think the first interesting question is how the known issues of the
upstream project and a specific distro package are related.

So, I think it is valid and beneficial to look at both the project and
distro trackers, and see which information is useful to a potential
consumer.

I think it is also fine if you can compile and provide a list from
Fedora and various other distros you care about.

>>
>> Rationale
>>
>> Jason proposed to work on some potential quick wins for some users of
>> Linux distributions.
>>
>> We want to present a collection of known issues, from existing
>> databases and resources. The first challenge is to collect and present
>> the known issues in some way suitable for a discussion and giving a
>> potential user a chance to understand how to work with such a result.
>
>
> In the statement above could you expand a bit on "collect and present
> the known issues in some way suitable". For example starting from the
> Kernel bugzilla or any other bugzilla what would be the added value of
> the WG? Maybe an example on a specific issue would hep here...
>

That is the question to answer. How would such information need to be
presented? Is a manufacturer just interested in the numbers? Do these
findings need to be categorized? What categories would help? What do
the distro bug trackers already offer?

And yes, I think exploring this question on a specific issue will help
to keep the discussion and presentation specific to the problem we
intend to solve for the stakeholders Jason refers to.

Lukas

> Thanks
> Gab
>
>>
>>
>> Planned activities
>>
>> tbd.
>> [What type of activities will the working group undertake? What are
>> the expected results of these activities and how will these be shared
>> and managed?]
>>
>> Collaboration
>>
>> tbd.
>> [What is the expected relationship with other working groups? How will
>> the new WG collaborate with the existing WGs, and how will this be
>> managed?]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lukas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>