Architecture Community Meeting Minutes

[qor-lb]

All official meetings will be documented in this thread. So if you subscribe here, you'll get summaries of the meetings you missed.

[qor-lb]

Weekly 2025-02-24

Participants

• Zoran Cutura
• Arvid Sievert @arsibo
• Johannes Glamsch @johannes-esr
• Andrey Babanin
• Lars Bauhofer @qor-lb
• Nico Hartmann @HartmannNico
• Ulrich Freund
• Markus Bechter @ramceb
• Lutz Niebergall @LuNieb

Agenda

1. Stand-in for 3rd & 10th march: @vinodreddy-g
2. Location & timeline next F2F WS (25-27 march)
3. Updates on the CFT Leads?
   • FEO
   • Communication
   • Logging
   • Persistency
4. Formal criteria for contribution selection (proposal from @ramceb / @qor-lb)
5. Current status S-CORE Roadmap Meeting Minutes (TL & Communities & CFTs) #434
6. Reference integration with other OS than QNX - follow-up with RedHat

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

• alternative april 8th - 10th (tues - thu)
• Agenda: block per feature + grooming on 1.0 feature architecture (bigger blog)
  • target: define feature requests
• Location: MB TI Ulm

to 3.

• Communitcation lead is @LittleHuba
• Persistency potentially taken over by guy (to be verified @LuNieb)

to 4.

• accepted & approved
• @qor-lb to include the list into the WS minutes

to 6.

• invite for breakout - 1h
  • participants: Ulrich F, Arvid, Zoran, Nico, Lutz +1, Martin t,
  • @HartmannNico to setup invite

Misc:

• additional reoccurring slot for architecture 1.0 refinement in the weeklies
  • start with the obvious features (e.g. diag)
  • define assumptions towards os (e.g. safe fs, sockets, ...)

Formal criteria for contribution selection

Criteria

Functional adherence to feature request

• ++ everything according to fr
• + partially fulfilling fr (subest of functionality)
• 0 fr needs to be implemented

Availability of source code

• ++ open source available under OSI compliant license
• + plan to be open source under OSI compliant license
• 0 open source available non OSI compliant license
• - not open sourced

Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?

• ++ implemented in a certifiable subset of C++ or Rust
• + refactoring needed but mostly using certifiable subset of C++ or Rust
• 0 written in QM or not according to project programming language

Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?

• -- not available (no plan to close the gaps)
• - not open source but available (not planned to open source)
• 0 not available but plan to close gap exists
• + not open source but available and planned to be open source
• ++ available in open source and compliant with S-CORE process

Features

FEO

Criteria	Runtime	FEO PoC	Nautilus
Functional adherence to feature request	+ (subset of FEO)	++	++
Availability of source code	++	++	- (tbc)
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	0 (PoC)	0 (PoC)	++
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	0	0	- (tbc)

IPC

Criteria	iceoryx2	Lola	IEC + DRP
Functional adherence to feature request	++	++	0
Availability of source code	++	++	+
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	++	++	0
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	-	+	--

Log & Trace

Criteria	mw::log	Log & Trace	MP Log
Functional adherence to feature request	++	++ covers also tracing	+
Availability of source code	++	++	+
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	++	0	++
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	+	-- only artefacts from COVESA/dlt are availible	+

Persistency

Criteria	Persistency
Functional adherence to feature request	++
Availability of source code	++ ? (Usage of MPL within S-CORE to be checked -> @johannes-esr)
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	0
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	--

[vinodreddy-g]

Weekly 2025-03-03

Participants

• Zoran Cutura
• Arvid Sievert @arsibo
• Andrey Babanin
• Nico Hartmann @HartmannNico
• Vinod Reddy @vinodreddy-g
• Ulrich Freund
• Martin thiede

Agenda

1. Reference integration with other OS than QNX - follow-up with RedHat
   • invite for breakout - 1h
     participants: Ulrich F, Arvid, Zoran, Nico, Lutz +1, Martin t,
     @HartmannNico to setup invite
2. License for files in inc_xxx
   3 . additional reoccurring slot for architecture 1.0 refinement in the weeklies
   • start with the obvious features (e.g. diag)
   • define assumptions towards os (e.g. safe fs, sockets, ...)

Meeting Minutes

• Meeting to be synced with RedHat.
  participants: Ulrich F, Arvid, Zoran, Nico, Lutz +1, Martin t,
  @HartmannNico to setup invite

• Agreed to use the license in the inc_xxx repo's like-https://github.com/eclipse-score/inc_feo/blob/be629b8bf2e1444994fa149d1f45efeba84d4909/examples/rust/feo-mini-adas/build.rs

• We should start having meeting slots for the workshop prep to improve on 1.0 architecture: https://eclipse-score.github.io/_images/score_architecture_core_stack_target_picture.png
• Agreed to prepare for the 1.0 arch prep
• slots proposal -Stuttgart/Ulm- 14th march
• @arsibo @ZoranCutura to organize the meeting

• Tech leads should come up with a proposal for the coding language group to handle for example - coding guidelines

common libs required for ipc and logging.

• Feature request: common libraries for IPC and Logging #549

[vinodreddy-g]

Weekly 2025-03-10

Participants

• Zoran Cutura
• Arvid Sievert @arsibo
• Johannes Glamsch @johannes-esr
• Andrey Babanin
• Ulrich Freund
• Markus Bechter @ramceb
• Lutz Niebergall @LuNieb

Agenda

1. Results of communication workshop - https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/542
2. Workshop prep to improve on 1.0 architecture - meeting arranged.

Meeting Minutes

Will be discussed in detail in CFT.

Agreed to prepare for the 1.0 arch prep - Stuttgart - 14th march.

common libs required for ipc and logging.

agreed on this proposal - #549

info - link to v0.5 scope - https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/score_releases/index.html#releases