Eclipse S-CORE
General SW Dev Process Community - Meeting Minutes #407
Replies: 72 comments 17 replies
-
|
Time: Agenda: Warnings stopping doc build Participants: Meeting Minutes: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Time: Agenda: General Traceability Concept, #343 Participants: Meeting Minutes: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Time: Agenda: Participants: Meeting Minutes: Release Management Ticket #313 may have to be taken over by other person, to be discussed on next Process Community Meeting Alignment Eclipse Safety Process / Trustable SW / S-CORE / … Alex gave Feedback from AUTOSAR workshop, outcomes: #809 Verification Process Tickets: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Acommunity%3Atesting |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Mar-25, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda:
Meeting Minutes:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-08, 2pm-3pm o'clock Participants: Agenda: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-15, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Quality Management, #835 Meeting Minutes: Discussed topics for the up-coming workshop at BMW on 23.04/24.04.2025 Discussed latest proposal: link implementation to architecture Discussed Quality Management, Follow-Up Planned for 15.04.2025, 14:15-15:15, @PandaeDo will invite |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Apr-29, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Meeting Minutes: Create Ticket to create TSF in Sphinx-Needs, and link to S-CORE processes initially to find gaps and vice versa, @masc2023 As example see here: https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/safety-monitor/safety-monitor/-/tree/main/trustable/safety-monitor-expectations?ref_type=heads Release Management shall be released as next. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-06, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Meeting Minutes: Planning Update for Next Milestone done, Quality Management Review Meeting, 07.05.2025, 9-10, @aschemmel-tech , @masc2023 , @PandaeDo will invite Feedback Pilot Projects: (EPIC Process Pilots #760) @aschemmel-tech presented some review findings, improvement tickets to be created, topics: Renaming of Concept Description, e.g. to Process Description, improvement of Change Management Request, more explicit description about responsibilities for different Requests, Rework of Contribution, remove word "Contribution Request", Discussed about FMEA/DFA, separate Meeting will be setup, considering from the begin Safety/Security |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-20, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Decide to delete now process folder in doc to avoid inconsistencies, not merged PRs, which have input for process folder in doc should be separated
Meeting Minutes: Max will try a bugfix for #1103 proposed by Jochen today Alexander will prepare the PR to delete the score/docs/process folder if Volker can build locally Decision for eclipse-score/process_description#13 : Max will disable the check for all foldernames below process_description/process Question on the "Platform DFA" - what do we link it to:
Alexander presented his work on the folder templates |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
May-27, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda:
Meeting Minutes: Audit Findings discussed, Tickets assigned Template folder will be updated with document header by @aschemmel-tech, Process Requirements implementation, @aschemmel-tech will discuss with @MaximilianSoerenPollak , @AlexanderLanin |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
June-03, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Meeting Minutes: Tool Requirements will be created, Prototype as Doc-as-code, How to link Tool Requirements: Link will be done from Tool-Repo to the Process_Description, Where to locate the Tool Verification Report is not clear yet, must be defined -Bazel check "link the same issue" means that we have to generate an issue for every wp. Do we want this? NO -Platform DFA question from last meeting Safety Analysis and Quality Management are now pushed to process_description, ready-for-review Reviewer for Pilot Persistency needed: @kroehnd Folder Template is missing "Implementation Template", @aschemmel-tech will updated it, done, with eclipse-score/process_description#29 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
June-10, 9-10 o'clock Participants: @PandaeDo Agenda: Meeting Minutes: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
June-17, 9-10 o'clock Participants: @PandaeDo Agenda: Meeting Minutes: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
June-24, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda:
Meeting Minutes:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
July-01, 9-10 o'clock Participants: Agenda: Discuss Bugfix Template: eclipse-score/communication#25 Meeting Minutes: @hoe-jo proposed problem, improvement templates, will be used as basis for score Component Folder in Score discussed (Component Register), audience would propose to follow up with that Implementation Checklist IMPL_01_02 possible removal/update discussed, shall be removed @aschemmel-tech |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Mar-26, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@aschemmel-tech (deputy host) Agenda:Open topics for Audit on April-14 (about two weeks) - see eclipse-score/process_description#518 eclipse-score/process_description#618 and eclipse-score/process_description#621, based on eclipse-score/process_description#418 (and https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-14901172). MoM:@pahmann : usage of the attributes already described in the requirements process to document full verification coverage. Some guideline improvement is pending. Open topics for Audit on April-14 Prio 1:
Prio 2: not covered due to absence of @masc2023
Implementation of eclipse-score/process_description#418 will need considerable effort: @aschemmel-tech to cover metamodell picture and related process description changes, docs-as-code changes and adaption of process_description sphinx-needs elements (as done by @RSingh1511) and then all the related changes in score and modules repository. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Apr-2, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@aschemmel-tech Agenda:eclipse-score/process_description#535 – now implemented “versioned links” by UseBlocks: https://sphinx-needs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/changelog.html#release-8-0-0 - seems it is possible only to cover links in one direction. Progress on eclipse-score/process_description#450 ? eclipse-score/process_description#624 Component static view is not mandatory? Would need update to "external" AoU linking concept. (https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/_images/score_building_blocks_meta_model.drawio.svg) MoM:POC for "Conditional link assessment" shall be done, https://sphinx-needs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/changelog.html#release-8-0-0, if this could solve the impact analysis problem, may future extension for hashing is need, volunteers welcome (e.g. @MaximilianSoerenPollak , contact @aschemmel-tech for that topic Discussed when merging feature/module artefacts into module repos can be start. @RolandJentschETAS will do a pilot, and after finishing it, all other module teams can start to move the artefacts. @RolandJentschETAS offers todo then to move the artefacts for all modules, unless the module teams want todo it themselve's. Discussed open PR's, please look to #2741, and eclipse-score/process_description#624, if we can merge them at least, others may still more discussion Discussed Component static view is not mandatory? Would need update to "external" AoU linking concept. (https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/_images/score_building_blocks_meta_model.drawio.svg) https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/general_concepts/score_traceability_concept.html shows different examples including components without component architecture. @RolandJentschETAS will extend the documentation to describe it, complex, simple components. @RolandJentschETAS may raise a Design Decision as based on eclipse-score/module_template#58, in module_template repo to get a decision on how to structure the documentation |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is the wrong person tagged here? Edit: Has been corrected. Thx |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Apr-9, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:eclipse-score/process_description#598 Audit time slots ok? No "Safety" process meeting next Tuesday? MoM:Discussed how to solve the vulnerabilities topic for each repo, proposal to make it as a prerequisite to be part of the reference_integration. Means, only modules with no vulnerabilities can be part of it. @FScholPer will add this to the reference_integration DR. Safety Audit will be on 14.04 (9am-5pm), so Safety Community Meeting will be skipped. Discussed about status of implementing the DR-Process-001, @RolandJentschETAS is working on that, piloting Logging. Discussed #2747, everybody from process shall review and add comments to it |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Apr-16, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:Release process description v1.5.3, updates eclipse-score/process_description#642 - impact of non-mandatory architecture views. (see eclipse-score/process_description#654) eclipse-score/process_description#652 - audit findings resolution New contribution proposal: eclipse-score/module_template#58 Safety Analysis Process Improvement proposal:
The change is split over the following PRs MoM: @ANegm-ETAS presented the changes of Safety Analysis, PRs as mentioned above @RolandJentschETAS works on the update of module_template to include the folder_templates from proces_description, and examples Showed eclipse-score/score-crates#31, example for doing classification approach for Rust Crates |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Apr-23, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:Lifting processes to the next ML - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/
https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/pulls eclipse-score/process_description#654 MoM: @aschemmel-tech raised the question how to get to the next level: "Lifting processes to the next ML" eclipse-score/process_description#654 discussed. Ready to merge, enhancements can be done in separate PRs. #2825, @RolandJentschETAS still working on it. Next step: Merge Module_Templates, Remove Module_Templates in process description, Logging has the changes already in a PR, but not merged yet. Please review eclipse-score/process_description#659, eclipse-score/process_description#663 Discussed #2717. Conclusion, PyTest is part of ITF, so can be closed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Apr-30, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:Planning review and updates PRC - Process Development Community (view) #2825 https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/pulls https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pulls FMEA change requests:
MoM: @ANegm-ETAS presented
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
May-07, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:Planning review and updates Not discussed: Security Management topics: MoM: Planning for processes next Maturity Level: eclipse-score/process_description#664 - @aschemmel-tech and @PandaeDo will work on filling the gap of missing component requirement inspection for KVS (persistency component) Also for implementation a new Epic for ML2 shall be created by @PandaeDo that bring together all open issues which can be closed afterwards. Discusstion regarding reports. Many different sources for the moment https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/score_tools/tools_requirements/index.html, https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/pr-484/internals/requirements/implementation_state.html, https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/pr-675/standards/iso26262/iso26262.html, ... to create overviews of the actual status. We want to bring them togehter to one location (proposal in every module and one overall in S-CORE or Reference Integration). The Security Management & Process Topics are re-integrated to this round from May on. On Wednesday there is a new, more technical round to discuss Security implementation. Next week there will be no meeting because of public holiday. We continue at 21th May. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
May-21, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:Holidays @aschemmel-tech next two weeks - @masc2023 will moderate the Tuesday meetings. We may cancel the meeting May-26 due to many absences. Product Implement Planning, v0.8, e.g. for Processes @pahmann suggested to plan to perform an ASPICE audit to S-CORE processes - discuss next Thursday also with @masc2023 and later with TLC. But even more problematic is the fading contribution on security processes - safety without security is not possible. @PandaeDo will discuss in security feature team but we also need to address this to the Technical Lead Circle. https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#aou_req__platform__testing - wish is to describe better what the integrator is expected to do, e.g. repeat all unit tests on target (always), re-check structural coverage (but no need to also reach 100%), but rely on other Quality KPI like static code analysis done in the S-CORE module repo. Repetition of unit tests is mandatory due to possibly different dependencies on used library versions in the S-CORE and Integrator environments. @aschemmel-tech will create a ticket to add some additional hints for the integrator about how to fulfill the above AoU. There is also the ongoing discussion about provision and re-performing of unit tests in the S-CORE reference integration repository. Question from infrastructure team: https://sdvworkinggroup.slack.com/archives/C0864L05332/p1779266951413169 - do we want to block the "needsextend" feature which is e.g. used a lot for tags of the needs. Current opinion of the process team is that we should block all other uses of this (apart from "tag") e.g. for status, safety, security, .... We should write a process requirement for this. @pahmann to do maybe within documentation process. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ticket is #2923 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Btw for the needextends there is another proposal form infra community. How about we allow all things, but we FORBIDD overwriting already existing options as well as check that only needs in the current document are changed. So that the mentioned issue with changing the rst from raw rst to HTML is not a thing. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
May-28, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@pahmann Agenda:Product Implement Planning, v0.8, e.g. for Processes Implementation Process ASPICE Requirements status: "Draft" Reloaded Info from Release Team: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1595 MoM: @RolandJentschETAS has updated the implementation process. Inspection checklist should consider simple and complex components. @RolandJentschETAS checks, if the inspection checklist has to be updated. @pahmann proposed again to do an internal ASPICE assessment, (anyhow planned as part of evidence for ISO 26262 audit and part of our Quality Management process). That would need organization overhead, people who play auditor roles and people who present the process areas. @pahmann will contact the TL circle for that topic. @pahmann brought up again the topic: Requirements status: "Draft" Reloaded, some people uses parent requirements, implemented as "dummy", but with status "valid". Difficult to test, can only seen by inspection. 04.06, 2026, @pahmann will take over the moderation, for people in south Germany, there is local vacation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
June-04, 9:30-9:40 o'clockParticipants:Agenda:
MoM:3. ASPICE internal audit
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
June-11, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@aschemmel-tech Agenda:Status Detailed Design? Removed as sphinx-needs elements? Linkage of unit tests? - post poned until Roland joins again. Metamodel change eclipse-score/docs-as-code#446 - will need updates in score/module repos still Why the requirements of the feature are still under the platform? https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/general/folder.html This will course dependencies. Would propose to store them also under the module. MoM:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
June-18, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@aschemmel-tech Agenda:https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/_images/score_building_blocks_meta_model.drawio.svg has "includes" link to interface - should replace "provides" - what is the current status of change (see https://github.com/eclipse-score/docs-as-code/blob/main/src/extensions/score_metamodel/metamodel.yaml)? --> skipped to next meeting MoM:eclipse-score/docs-as-code#604 Presentation from @MaximilianSoerenPollak. With new folder structure a useful test will fail. It checks if the path contains the feature/component name. With a new test in conf.py, which is optional, this can be covered. Roll-out will be enforced by docs-as-code. Decision is that we give it a try. Release for release 0.8 (process description 2.0.0) #2984 - need to be (also) discussed in Rust community. Rust community is contacted. @MaximilianSoerenPollak will get also in touch with @PLeVasseur @PandaeDo will update Documentation Management Plan to adopt new documentation structure. It might be useful to have also Plans inside of the module. I think it's a helpful overview to check e.g. the status. What do you think? https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/documentation_management.html --> @PandaeDo will create a PR for that. The overview seems to be useful also for the other modules #2911 - progress on sub-tickets --> Quick reminder to have a look on the tasks Metamodel change eclipse-score/docs-as-code#446 - will need updates in module repos (baselibs, persistency) still @PandaeDo and @aschemmel-tech will take the task Due to @masc2023 absence 23.-26.06, @aschemmel-tech will moderate 25.06. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
June-25, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@aschemmel-tech Agenda:eclipse-score/module_template#97 eclipse-score/docs-as-code#612 MoM:Discussion about ML3 criteria, especially tooling implementation - @FScholPer offered this link about tooling implementation status https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516?sort=new#discussioncomment-17430041 - based on this Process Owners should make sure also tool requirements shall be created as these are used as a basis for planning. For the impact analysis tooling @aschemmel-tech and @MaximilianSoerenPollak will have a break out session to discuss how to realize. @RolandJentschETAS : please create epic for Architecture ML3 with the citeria as in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/ or eclipse-score/process_description#664 Verification: eclipse-score/process_description#719 prepared, please review. Verification Plan will be fixed by another PR on score repo (planned today) - set the plan to "valid" eclipse-score/process_description#717 and eclipse-score/module_template#97 need to be re-review so @RolandJentschETAS is able to merge before his holidays. We decided to stay with the term "UID" which is realized by file and path name. eclipse-score/docs-as-code#612 - proposal by @FScholPer to change the list elements within Verification Report and Inspection Checklists into sphinx-needs elements. Process community will review the PR and also discuss again next Tuesday after we made up our minds on this major change. We also were encouraged to also discuss process topics within the "AI community" which is currently not very active, but where we should work on defining "guardrails" on our use of AI tooling in S-CORE. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@aschemmel-tech will you invite for the breakout session? I forgot to ask in the meeting. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
July-02, 9:30-10:30 o'clockParticipants:@PandaeDo Agenda:Summertime Planning:
Revisit: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1467#discussioncomment-17420745 Discuss: Release 2.0.0 Findings: Initial version of quality report created Maintainer duties, e.g. MoM:Updated summer planning, see above informed about new interest group, AI, Meeting is 4-5pm, each Wednesday, see public Google Calendar for Zook Link Discussed eclipse-score/docs-as-code#612, also in parallel Anton proposed something, POC shall be done and presented again for a common decision Discussed: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/eclipse.org-committers/msg01582.html, will be discussed in next TL round, how to continue with the Eclipse proposal. Discussed and made aware of Maintainer duties, e.g. Discussed, not critical at the moment, check if the responsible persons are back, if patch releases are needed Discussed: #3056 (comment) @aschemmel-tech started with safety plan for LifeCycle |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Wrt #730 - Roland is away for two weeks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
But he gave clear guidance, can you update the PR, then we can approve? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I updated the PR according to his last words, so it should be fine. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
No meeting on 09.07.2026 due to absence of many people (vacation season) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Time:
Feb-18, 9-10 o'clock
Agenda:
Check participants
Align on Agenda for today
Planning - are we confident for Audit slot 3
Unique ID #180 - exception for standard requirements (question from Markus Schu) - no
Do we want to have safety/security attribute for roles? And also others like workflows and workproducts? See #329 - no, can be removed from roles, also only optional "security" attribute for stakeholder requirements.
Process description template (define what is in "concept", "getting-started" ...?
Other discussions from open PRs (e.g. #399)
Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@hoe-jo
@kroehnd_mbg
@PandaeDo
@pahmann
@markert-r
@PhilipPartsch
Meeting Minutes:
Planning:
Present Requirement Process: #377 - findings documented in PR
Process description template - not for now to be able to do some improvements on the way, but "Requirement Process" should be used as an example.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions