<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: Thanks, Elana. This will be our strategy. We will start tracking and fixing all new bugs on tinyconfig for a small selection of tools, which should be doable by

Following initial discussion with Lukas, here is a summary of some relevant guidelines: tinyconfiig is ok but still needs some tweaking so that you can boot the system (e.g., add support for initrd;

Hi, - Topic idea: Structural coverage analysis is required by Safety standards and that includes Linux and GLibC. Building GLibC with instrumentation for code coverage analysis (gcov) was not

Hi, - Topic idea: * Oliver Sang and Philip Li from Intel will present Intel’s Linux Test Robot (LKP) -https://01.org/lkp/ - What you hope to accomplish in the session: * Introduce

Just a quick reminder to please complete the poll by Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 1st, about the best dates for ELISA Workshop #6. Doodle: ELISA Workshop #6 Dates Doodle

Dear all, In the last meeting, it was requested to share the kernel configurations the Tool Investigation and Code Improvement Subgroup is using. We currently use: - x86-64 tinyconfig: this can be

<ralf.ramsauer@...> wrote: Agree. I need to add that Pia's work is good research work per the following definition: Every good research work raises many more new relevant research

Hi, Let me add, by manual investigation, we found some patterns within "wrongly integrated" patches. Just to give a concrete example, Jakub Kicinski started to integrate patches for NETWORKING,

Good luck! An interesting note would be to compare your results to the evidences of process compliance in non-open source (commercial) software development. And resulting implications for

<paul.albertella@...> wrote: Let us get started then... :) ...in the end, the result of clear Policy, Process and Practice matching each other is more "trustable software"... Lukas

<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: Interesting definition of software quality... Yes, that is the challenge of interpretation of such data... what does "good" actually mean and what is "good

Yes, I'd like to do that :-) This is a good example of Process vs Policy vs Practice (see my previous post [1]), where Practice (as shown by Evidence), does not necessarily comply with a Policy

Very interesting work, Lukas - thanks for bringing to our attention. And there is certainly plenty of work to follow up. Actually - I find the results to be quite complimentary. Given the open-source

Dear all, Pia Eichinger, a student at OTH Regensburg, mentored by Ralf Ramsauer and Wolfgang Mauerer, has written her bachelor thesis on Maintainers Expectations vs. Maintainers Reality: An Analysis

- Topic idea: To introduce our taxonomy for kernel configurations for safety, and to agree on a set of criteiria for existing and/or new configurations which can support qualification of a Linux

- Topic idea: Wrap up report by Development Process WG for analysis of kernel test process, focusing on identifying and prioritizing follow up tasks which may be focused by ELISA - What you hope to

Thanks Jason. I will add it to the list of topics. thanks, -- Shuah

Hi Elana, Sounds good to me. Please send in formal topic proposals for these two items with expected outcomes. thanks, -- Shuah

Dear all, We're starting to plan for the ELISA Workshop #6. It will be held again in a virtual format over the course of 3 days and across multiple time zones. To help us get a sense of your

Pretty much a copy/paste from the previous workshop: Topic idea: Linux in Basic Safety Applications white paper update What you hope to accomplish in the session: Follow-up from Workshop #5 on the