Architecture Community Meeting Minutes #472

qor-lb · 2025-02-24T12:28:38Z

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator

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 · 2025-02-24T12:32:22Z

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

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

Stand-in for 3rd & 10th march: @vinodreddy-g
Location & timeline next F2F WS (25-27 march)
Updates on the CFT Leads?
- FEO
- Communication
- Logging
- Persistency
Formal criteria for contribution selection (proposal from @ramceb / @qor-lb)
Current status S-CORE Roadmap Meeting Minutes (TL & Communities & CFTs) #434
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?	--

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-02-25T15:18:57Z

vinodreddy-g
Feb 25, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-03

Participants

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

Agenda

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
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

1 reply

qor-lb Mar 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

RedHat & S-CORE Integration [2025-03-05]

Participants

Nico Hartmann @HartmannNico
Ulrich Freund @vevmaki
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Martin Thiede @mthiede-acn2
Leonardo Rosetti @odra
Torsten Hildebrand

Meeting Minutes

RedHat builds AutoSD images for certain platforms based on CentOS packages: https://sigs.centos.org/automotive/provisioning/
Reference Boards for Automotive images exist
RasPi4/5 is the preferred platform
Presentation
- AutoSD introduction
- Safety-Certification status & distribution
- Supported platforms
- How to get started
  - Redhat can provide images for target platforms: https://autosd.sig.centos.org/AutoSD-9/nightly/raw-images/
Community Arm of AutoSD: Automotive SIG AutoSD
Safety manual is not based on FOSS
Safety Assumption in S-CORE require mapping to Safety Assumptions in OS safety manual
- RedHat can support the creation of the S-CORE safety assumptions towards the OS
Invite RedHat into architecture group (Leonardo)
- Targets:
  - Decide on a target platform
  - Provide an AutoSD Build for that platform
  - Support the creation of public S-CORE assumptions of use for Safety OS
- Roadmap depending on S-CORE proceedings

vinodreddy-g · 2025-03-10T07:15:09Z

vinodreddy-g
Mar 10, 2025
Collaborator

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

Results of communication workshop - https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/542
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

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-03-17T12:35:15Z

qor-lb
Mar 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-17

Participants

Ulrich Huber @LittleHuba
Leonardo Rossetti
Vinod Reddy Gopi Reddy @vinodreddy-g
Johannes Glamsch @johannes-esr
Ulrich Freund @vevmaki
Tim Kliefoth @timkl7
Lars Bauhofer @qor-lb
Martin Thiede @mthiede-acn2
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Andrey Babanin

Agenda

RedHat & S-CORE Integration [2025-03-05]
1. Introduction to AutoSD (Leonardo)
2. Potential target platform for RedHat AutoSD
3. How to provide an AutoSD Build for that platform
4. RedHat support the creation of public S-CORE assumptions of use for Safety OS
High level architecture proposal for scope of v1.0
C++ & Rust toolchain
1. review: C++ toolchain proposal
2. preparation: Rust toolchain proposal
  - compiler & settings, coding rules/sca, style & format, unit test, ...
  - subject matter experts required to support proposal creation (Simon Gasse?)
Issues for AI's of last workshop
Agenda Architecture Community Quarterly F2F [2025-04-08 - 2025-04-10]

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

QEMU for the the initial setup of a virtual platform available
@odra to provide the complete list of supported target platforms
@odra to follow-up on 1.iv. after internal discussion, potentially inclusion of AutoSD for 1.0 instead of 0.5

to. 2.

transfer of picture into draw.io
Boxes that are not represented as FR's already shall have a small description to clarify the content
@eclipse-score/cft-communication: breakout for com API and interaction with respective network protocols like CAN & SomeIP

to 3.

1. C++ Reviewers: @LittleHuba, @vinodreddy-g
1. Rust support: @simon-acc, @vinodreddy-g

to 5.

short status of every CFT prepared up front, only questions to be answered in the WS
Workshop will be mostly used for 1.0 preparation and the Architecture Community
- Preparation of 1.0 feature requests
- Goal: shape the picture of 1.0 so that constraints/requirements for 0.5 features become clearer
- everyone: prepare list of topics to discussion for the 1.0 preparation

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-03-24T07:19:02Z

qor-lb
Mar 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Breakout for Valeo Contribution proposal: Service Bus component
- Tuesday 25th 15:00 - 17:00
- Wednesday 26th 11:00 - 12:00; 15:00 - 17:00
- Thursday 27th 8:00 - 9:00
- Friday 28th 8:00 - 9:00
Validation of PRs
Agenda Architecture Community Quarterly F2F [2025-04-08 - 2025-04-10]

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

approach in general:
1. invite to architecture community for first introduction and explanation of process
2. contribution precondition: source code is (or shortly will be ~3weeks, roadmap in place) available & S-CORE feature request exists and is accepted
3. breakout for pitch after first overview of functionality (slides to be sent 3 days in advance to breakout session)
4. evaluation of contribution using the formal verification checklist
add to "how to contribute" guide @qor-lb

to 3.

review of architecture: Add S-CORE architecture diagram in drawio format #765

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-03-31T08:20:05Z

qor-lb
Mar 31, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Selection of process pilot components Select a Rust module for the process pilot #798 / Select a C++ module for the process pilot #797
- c++ proposal: lola?
- rust proposal: feo?
- optional target: instead of call for contributions, implement json from scratch
Feature request for safe json in Rust and C++
- call for contributions vs writing form scratch for porcess pilot
Feature Request for Config Management #754
Agenda & Participants for Architecture Workshop https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
Autosar discussion

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

moved to next weekly due to missing attendance

to 2.

one FR with the request for a C++ and a Rust contribution
Persistency & communication cft to nominate participants to prepare FR

to 3.

moved to next weekly due to missing participants

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-04-07T11:31:30Z

qor-lb
Apr 7, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-07

Participants

Leonardo Rossetti
Tim Kliefoth
Zoran Cutura
Markus Bechter
Abhishek Goyal
Mohamed Bejijou
Vinod reddy gopi reddy
mina Hamdi
Ulrich Freund
Desoky Abdelqawy
basalib
Ahmeld ElAbyad
Andrey Babanin
Arvid Sievert
Martin Thiede

Agenda

Contribution announcement Valeo
Agenda & Participants for Architecture Workshop https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
Feature Request for Config Management #754
Feature Request Orchestration #273
Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855
Selection of process pilot components Select a Rust module for the process pilot #798 / Select a C++ module for the process pilot #797
- c++ proposal: lola?
- rust proposal: feo?
- optional target: instead of call for contributions, implement json from scratch
Feature request for safe json in Rust and C++
- call for contributions vs writing form scratch for porcess pilot

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

Introduction overview presented by Ahmed ElAbyad
Deep dive in the context of Communication CFT - @HartmannNico
Scope: Com API / Communication concept - binding vs gateway
Presentation: Valeo Service Bus Based On CommonAPI .pdf

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-04-14T13:00:54Z

qor-lb
Apr 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-14

Participants

Agenda

Feature Request Layout
Architecture Workshop & Next steps
- Meeting Minutes: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
- Feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)
- next steps
Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855
Selection of process pilot components Select a Rust module for the process pilot #798 / Select a C++ module for the process pilot #797
- c++ proposal: lola?
- rust proposal: feo?
- optional target: instead of call for contributions, implement json from scratch
Feature request for safe json in Rust and C++
- call for contributions vs writing form scratch for porcess pilot

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

accepted: besides prose motivation and spec, derive/include feature requirements + update of stakeholder requirements

to 2.

Initial proposal to be created by FR owners.
Break-out sessions for review of feature requests upon initial proposal (person of interest to be defined within arch community)
Update & review of existing 0.5 FR's required as soon as possible

to 3.

@odra, @qor-lb, @ZoranCutura to breakout - how include the assumptions of use for a Safety OS in S-CORE

to 4.

C++ selection: LoLa
Rust: FEO / Persistency
First target major gaps to be identified in C++, second start with Rust

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-04-28T11:01:24Z

qor-lb
Apr 28, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-28

Participants

Agenda

Slot for next F2F: 24.06. - 26.06.
Context for Persistency Feature (data deployment)
Current Status Feature Requests

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

clarification of dates until next weekly
@qor-lb: agenda to be agreed 1 month in advance

to 2.

https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/853
assumption for 0.5: kvs storage is only accessible within one process
@eclipse-score/cft-persistency to come up with a design proposal until next weekly

to 3.

align the setup of the baselibs with the tech lead circle: @qor-lb

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-05T11:45:30Z

qor-lb
May 5, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-05-05

Participants

Agenda

Safe the date next F2F: 24.06. - 26.06. (CW26)
S-CORE & AUTOSAR Workshop outcome
Context for Persistency Feature: proposal by @eclipse-score/cft-persistency
Preparation: 0.5 architecture
Feature Request: Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

select potential alternatives
- CW28: 08.07 - 10.07.
- CW29: 15.07 - 17.07.
@thilo-schmitt host at MB TI Ulm
@qor-lb update invite & location

to 2.

S-CORE to propose a "plug-in" architecture that would allow implementations serving specific protocols to stay closed-source (allowing closed-source implementations if open-sourcing is unsuccessful)
General proposal from S-CORE to open protocol specifications was well received and will be further discussed within AUTOSAR
@eclipse-score/cft-communication define proposal for plugin-concept based on the SOME/IP use-case (+ @ZoranCutura)

to 3.

@guysagnes presented the proposal
proposal will be discussed and aligned in the next persistency weekly

to 4.

Aligning the common 0.5 architecture
Two main integration points identified
- FEO, using the platform API to provide the functionality to the Applications (@eclipse-score/cft-feo to provide proposal)
  - Com, Persistency, Log
- Baselibs, aligning on common base-libs across features (@qor-lb to setup cft-team)

to 5.

connection to @eclipse-score/community-operational for requirements towards integration platform
extension of motivation for additional development platform to be added

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-05-12T07:05:18Z

vinodreddy-g
May 12, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-05-12

Participants

@odra
@timkl7
@thilo-schmitt
@guysagnes
@arsibo
@johannes-esr
@ZoranCutura
@vevmaki
@4og
Stefan Potyra
Oliver Pajonk
Daniel Steinke
@ramceb
@LittleHuba
@vinodreddy-g
Dejan

Agenda

Introduction Dejan (Apex.AI)
Current Status Feature Requests
Persistency Related to the Persistency CFT [2025-05-08...]
1. CFT: Agreement about the KVS management controlled over the initialization of the component where the process is clear identified. (Improvement: Adaptation of the open / build for KVS to allow process separation #1071)
2. Security abstraction
  Question: We have different deployment of the persistency data in direct relation to the security definition.
  How is the current plan to get the expected abstraction over the architecture (ACL / SE Policy - Linux, SecPol - QNX)?
SOVD PR Feature Request: Diagnostic System #1056

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

updated in the issues

to 3.

Feedback: The security will be taken as independent managed from API. It will rely on the system configuration.
Discussed and agreed

to 4.

Review of PR for SOVD Feature Request: Diagnostic System #1056 required.

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-19T11:14:06Z

qor-lb
May 19, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-05-19

Participants

Agenda

Current Status Feature Requests
- Target: End of May first draft available (~2 weeks left); Agreed & merged FRs until next F2F (CW28)
- Request TLs
  - Single responsible per FR
  - Kick-off session per FR within the next two weeks
    - Invitation to all TLs - internal distribution to responsible
    - Initial scoping of FR content
    - Clear identification of supporting (creating the FR) and reviewing participants within the first session & documentation in FR issue
Dependencies
2.1. Is the decision about the JSON library finalized and related API to be used? (dependency from Persistency FT)
-> https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/tree/main/score/json

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

For C++ rely on the frontend defined by the baselibs
Review for Component Request for JSON: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pull/822/files
- clarify responsibility of implementation
- Component request ready for review (@eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads )
@qor-lb clarify process for adding components (component request for every component required)?

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-26T10:59:27Z

qor-lb
May 26, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-05-26

Participants

Agenda

Deputy for CW23/24 @vinodreddy-g
Feature Request Proposals @dejanpan
- Feature Request for: IDL and code generation infrastructure #1164
- tooling for record, replay and visualization: FEO: Recording & Replay #1113
Current Status Feature Requests

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

IDL
- Scopes for an IDL:
  1. ABI compatible data types: defining data types via IDL and (generating) a related type in the programming language
  2. Serialization wrt. communication protocols/external representation: transformation from internal ABI compatible data types to external protocol serialization
  3. Interface definitions for applications/activities: Definition of input/output interfaces for the applications/activities as an exchange format within the users architecture
- Next steps:
  1. data types: discuss IDL for data types (relates to Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917)
  2. datatype transformation for different external protocols (relates to Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917, Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914)
Recording & Replay
Create a FR for rec/replay in conjunction with FEO & IPC -> @johannes-esr
Integration/clarification of scope in existing FEO activity
note: usability of ABI compatible data types in conjunction to DMA logging of current IPC communication

to 3.

shifted to next week

Misc:

@eclipse-score/community-architecture call for review: Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-06-02T06:11:37Z

vinodreddy-g
Jun 2, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-06-02

Participants

Agenda

Current Status Feature Requests - Feature Requests / Modification
Who is in charge for base-libs part of a feature?
- Variant 1: feature team is responsible for all.
- Variant 2: base lib team is responsible for API and feature team for the rest (e.g. logging daemon)

Meeting Minutes

baselibs use log api
currently log code is part of baselibs repo , could be refactored for 1.0 to have a log module.
Log FT is responsible for the log module.

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-06-16T11:40:52Z

qor-lb
Jun 16, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-06-16

Participants

Agenda

Welcome Sanimir Agovic

Epic: Architectural gap analysis S-CORE v0.5 #904 (Originally identified in Weekly 2025-05-05)

   - Two main integration points identified
      - FEO, using the platform API to provide the functionality to the Applications (@eclipse-score/cft-feo to provide proposal)
        - Com, Persistency, Log
      - Baselibs, aligning on common base-libs across features (@qor-lb to setup cft-team)

Agenda Proposal for next F2F CW28 by next weekly
- High-level goal: review of 1.0 feature requests
Development of Modules containing Autosar IP
Kick-off Feature Request for Record & Replay #1167
Kick-off Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle #909
Current Status Feature Requests - Feature Requests / Modification

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

Kick-off for baselibs team this week
@eclipse-score/cft-feo / @johannes-esr to present proposal in next weekly
Identify any functional gaps on the modules used within FEO to plan them for 0.5 (noted in the ticket above)

to 3.

accepted, proposal will be created by @ramceb & @qor-lb

to 4.

AUTOSAR Members could collaborate in a AUTOSAR hosted repo using the S-CORE toolchain
@qor-lb add to F2F agenda: alignment of which modules need to be developed in this setup

to 5.

invitation to all TL's in Cc, link to meeting in issue above

to 6.

link to meeting in issue above

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-06-18T07:26:16Z

qor-lb
Jun 18, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-06-23

Participants

@qor-lb
@odra
@vinodreddy-g
@thilo-schmitt
Dejan Pangercic
Holger Braun
Christian Heissenberger
@ZoranCutura
@ramceb
Sanimir Agovic
Oliver Pajonk

Agenda

Welcome Christian & Holger
Preparation AUTOSAR WS 03.07. - Collaboration with external organization e.g. AUTOSAR, OpenSOVD
Proposal: Criteria for accepting a new feature request (additional to general acceptance criteria)
1. Clarity of the Problem Statement: Does the request clearly describe the problem it intends to solve in the motivation?
  
  A well-motivated feature request focuses on a real-world challenge or limitation users face today.
2. Clarity of the Proposed Functionality: Does the proposal clearly define the what (not the how) in the specification?
  
  We expect a precise description of the intended functionality without diving into implementation details. The proposal should describe the semantics and intended behavior.
3. Novelty and Feature Overlap: Does this feature already exist in the stack, or does it overlap with something similar?
  
  In S-CORE we aim for having only one solution for a specific problem. Duplication is discouraged unless justified by significant benefit.
4. Alignment with S‑CORE Scope: Is the feature aligned with the scope of S‑CORE and beneficial to its target community?
  
  We prioritize functionality that supports the scope of providing a safety critical middleware for the microprocessor domain over niche or proprietary needs.
5. Concept Maturity and Implementation Effort: Can the feature be realized within a reasonable time frame (e.g., 1–2 years)?
  
  The request should not rely on speculative technologies, large architectural overhauls, or undefined external standards. If feasibility is uncertain, a scoped-down prototype path should be proposed.
Review Agenda Architecture Community F2F Workshop [2025-07-08 - 2025-07-10] #1247

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

Participants: @ramceb, Holger, Christian, @ZoranCutura, Oliver, @qor-lb, @odra
Separation of AUTOSAR and OpenSOVD topic
General approach for integrating with existing projects (open and closed source)

to 3.

Dejan & @odra example for extending the feature request
review & extension possible until the next F2F workshop

Misc:

QNX Ports: https://github.com/orgs/qnx-ports/repositories
QNX 8.0 support is currently not tackled by the pilots - @eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads to escalate
-> breakout to prepare the Release Candidate for the target platforms (OS) and intended languages (C++ & Rust)
Workshop extension
- review process pilot to decide what artifacts will be created by the FT and which artefacts will be created by the arch community
- process pilot to showcase/evaluate how/what artifacts to create besides source code

2 replies

FScholPer Jun 18, 2025
Collaborator

@qor-lb Acceptance Critieria of Feature Requests are part of TL Circle. So can we please first talk about that there?

qor-lb Jun 18, 2025
Collaborator Author

@FScholPer sure lets address this on monday morning

ZoranCutura · 2025-06-26T07:54:38Z

ZoranCutura
Jun 26, 2025
Collaborator

@qor-lb I understood there should be a prepmeeting for the S-CORE team with metioned participant (topic 2.). Who is inviting for that preparation?

1 reply

qor-lb Jun 30, 2025
Collaborator Author

@ZoranCutura there was some misunderstanding on who is inviting/preparing. I have sent the invite for tomorrow 10 - 11am.

qor-lb · 2025-06-30T11:47:05Z

qor-lb
Jun 30, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-06-30

Participants

Agenda

F2F participants to be added by 02.07. EoB (hybrid event, online attendees please add info after company): Architecture Community F2F Workshop [2025-07-08 - 2025-07-10] #1247
@dejanpan & @odra example for extending the feature request
Invite for Preparation AUTOSAR WS 03.07. - Collaboration with external organization e.g. AUTOSAR (email address of Holger and Christian needed)

Meeting Minutes

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-07-14T11:33:04Z

qor-lb
Jul 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-07-14

Participants

@ZoranCutura
@qor-lb
@odra
Oliver Pajonk
@timkl7
@guysagnes
@thilo-schmitt
@4og
Christian Heissenberger
@FScholPer
@vevmaki
@ramceb
Sanimir Agovic
@dasoho
Christian Rappl
Bogdan Badicu
@dejanpan
@johannes-esr
@vinodreddy-g

Agenda

Deputy for 21st of July: @vinodreddy-g
Review of minutes until next week: Architecture Community F2F Workshop [2025-07-08 - 2025-07-10] #1247
Next F2F slot: 4th to 6th November
Call for participants: Platform safety concept: Support creation of Assumed AoUs by a safety-critical OS
Review Feature Request: Diagnostic System #1056

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

review until next weekly

to 3.

accepted as next F2F date
hosted at MB TI Ulm; invite to be update by @qor-lb

to 4.

Participants: @odra, @opajonk, @guysagnes, @qor-lb, @ZoranCutura

to 5.

Review until next Monday; acceptance afterwards

1 reply

chheis Jul 14, 2025

For transparency: I placed an invite with the details to the Eclipse Community Calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=NTIzaW5jaXQ4OGg2NTkxMnRlaTFrZGI0ZjggY18yYW1waTJibW9rYTNxdGVyNGRjZWFwMWQ1Z0Bn&tmsrc=c_2ampi2bmoka3qter4dceap1d5g%40group.calendar.google.com

vinodreddy-g · 2025-07-21T08:56:01Z

vinodreddy-g
Jul 21, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-07-21

Participants

Agenda

Review of minutes : Architecture Community F2F Workshop [2025-07-08 - 2025-07-10] #1247
Review Feature Request: Diagnostic System #1056
Discussion from tech lead meeting -Invites for the new features requests discussions.
feature request status

Meeting Minutes

to 1

we agree

to 2

agreed and merged

to 3

Feature Request lead/creator will invite the tech leads
others who want to join the kick off , could add their names to the feature request.

to 4

to tech leads
#757 - move it out from feature request view, since it is more a component.

Discuss in tech leads sync , that it can be taken up once we have more info on it.
#912

Create issues for this split in tech lead sync.
#913 - this FR will be split based on the workshop comments.(#1247)
Split into -
HW accelrators (Gpu shm, opencl,opengl, vulkan)
Inference (like onnx)
Genai (agent)

proposal for tech leads to split the view for feature requests to 0.5,1.0 and future.

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-07-28T11:26:27Z

vinodreddy-g
Jul 28, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-07-28

Participants

@vinodreddy-g
@odra
@FScholPer
@vevmaki
Gregor Nitsche
Mina Hamdi
@4og
Thomas Hahn
@ramceb
@LittleHuba

Agenda

feature request status
Module architecture
Draft Fr's

Meeting Minutes

for 2-

overall module architecture to be placed here - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/tree/main/docs/modules#

please review - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/tree/main/docs/modules

for 3-
#855 - Discuss with Tech leads
#1047 - was rejected
#1164 - PR to be created

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-08-04T11:19:15Z

qor-lb
Aug 4, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-08-04

Participants

@odra
@qor-lb
@vevmaki
Sorin Moldoveanu
@johannes-esr
@timkl7
@FScholPer
@ZoranCutura
@vinodreddy-g
Mina Hamdi
@HartmannNico
Isabella Stilkerich
Christian Rappl
@arsibo

Agenda

Review for: docs: sth_req for supported target platforms #1541
Possible further contributions MB
Current status feature requests
1. When should PRs be reviewed
2. When is call for contribution issued?

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

review until end of week

to 2.

Safety certified DDS Stack in Rust
- DDS stack in separate eclipse project, GW as part of S-CORE
- --> new feature request
MB deterministic application framework (similar scope to feo, from series development)
- potentially in S-CORE
- --> incubation for evaluation of technical positioning

to 3.

PRs to be ready for review at 11th August
PRs to be merged latest 17th of August

MISC.

Bazel module names shall be equal to the modules in the documentation --> @arsibo to reach out to process community to include convention
@sorinmold to present proposal for https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1509#discussioncomment-13986181 in next architecture community weekly

0 replies

sorinmold · 2025-08-04T12:35:09Z

sorinmold
Aug 4, 2025

Related to the usage of "inc" folder to differentiate between public and private headers for C++?
What hashing algorithm is should be used for the checksum of the persistence data ? And if the algorithm should be addressed in baselibs?

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-08-11T11:20:33Z

qor-lb
Aug 11, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-08-11

Participants

@ZoranCutura
Leo Hnatek
@arsibo
@qor-lb
Oliver Pajonk
@vevmaki
@odra
@sorinmold
@LittleHuba
@vinodreddy-g
Isabella Stilkerich

Agenda

@sorinmold to present proposal for https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1509#discussioncomment-13986181
- Related to the usage of "inc" folder to differentiate between public and private headers for C++?
- What hashing algorithm is should be used for the checksum of the persistence data ? And if the algorithm should be addressed in baselibs?
Current status feature requests
- Review comments to be added until EoB 2025-08-13
- FRs comments to be incorporated until EoB 2025-08-14
- FRs to be merged & call for contribution 2025-08-17

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

proposal brought forward by @LittleHuba
- source and headers and mocks in the same directory (keep files that belong to a unit together as close as possible)
- separation between public and internal units via details/ subfolder
- @LittleHuba to document approach for later reference (to be added in the development guidelines)
CRC32 selected, integration into baselibs aligned with baselibs FT @4og

to 2.

timeline reviewed & agreed

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-08-18T11:26:18Z

qor-lb
Aug 18, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-08-18

Participants

@qor-lb
@opajonk
@vinodreddy-g
Sebastian Arnold
@vevmaki
@ZoranCutura
@dasoho
Isabella Stilkerich
@arsibo
@odra
@johannes-esr
Daniel Steinke
V Peddina

Agenda

Current status feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

All FR's without open comments are approved by architecture community and ready for review by @eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads
Call for contributions to be issued before end of Aug (min 2 month lead time before next architecture community workshop)

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-08-25T10:39:58Z

FScholPer
Aug 25, 2025
Collaborator

@qor-lb

Any process about next steps for the rest of the feature requests with comments?
How is the process regarding call for contributions?

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-08-25T11:43:51Z

qor-lb
Aug 25, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-08-25

Participants

@ZoranCutura
@ramceb
Artem Myagaiev
@johannes-esr
Alex Agizim
@timkl7
Bucci Kawabuchi
@HartmannNico
@qor-lb
@dasoho
Mohammad Fouly
@vevmaki
Xavier Bonaventura
@FScholPer
Isabella Stillkerich
Christian Rappl
Sebastian Arnold
@vinodreddy-g

Agenda

Current status feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)
- Feature Request for Security & Crypto #905: Requirements missing -> not yet ready for review
- Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle #909: Squashed commit history with multiple companies involved -> recoverable?
- Feature Request for Time #910: Open comment about HW requirements -> discussion: S-CORE currently has only a reference OS, no HW defined. This requirement is important from system perspective but cannot be satisfied at the current stage (should we make it optional?).
- Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914: requires "clean" git history -> extend git guidelines: using rebase instead of merge to preserve history (input @johannes-esr)
Bucci Kawabuchi: AosEdge, a mixed-critical deployment and orchestration platform.
Discussion: moving the architecture community to the public eclipse calendar

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

Feature Request for Security & Crypto #905: Requirements should be available for review until end of week
Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle #909: commits recovered; to discuss - partial squashing of individual authors (@eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads & @eclipse-score/community-process to discuss handling and identification for relevant commits vs authors & contributors file)
Feature Request for Time #910: weaken requirement
Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914: @johannes-esr & @ZoranCutura & @opajonk to clean up git history -> document procedure in git guidelines

to 2.

AosEdge presented by Bucci (presentation to be shared)
- documentation:https://docs.aosedge.tech/
- code: https://github.com/aosedge

to 3.

accepted

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-09-01T11:35:36Z

qor-lb
Sep 1, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-09-01

Participants

@thilo-schmitt
@odra
@opajonk
Sebastian Arnold
@dasoho
@ramceb
@johannes-esr
@qor-lb
@vevmaki
Bucci Kawabuchi
@nmohanan31
@DanielSteinkeSDV
Leo Hnatek
@4og
@FScholPer
@dejanpan
@vinodreddy-g
@timkl7
Christian Rappl
Shorouk Ramzy

Agenda

Current status feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)
Mapping of AosEdge to S-CORE components: AosEdge for Eclipse S-CORE 20250901.pdf
Platform Definitions

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

next steps:
- detailed review of S-CORE feature requests
- contribution pitch at Nov WS according to How to contribute?

to 3.

clear definition of terms in docs: sth_req for supported target platforms #1541
@qor-lb to invite breakout with @odra and @ramceb to discuss platform integration based on lifecycle feature request

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-09-08T11:52:08Z

qor-lb
Sep 8, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-09-08

Participants

@DanielSteinkeSDV
@odra
@timkl7
@vevmaki
@opajonk
@qor-lb
Mohamed Bejijou
Eduard Metzker
@vinodreddy-g
@crimson11
@johannes-esr
Bucci Kawabuchi
@FScholPer
Christian Rappl
Mina Hamdi
@dejanpan

Agenda

Call for review
- Update api_guideline.rst #1610
- Add initial version of Feature Request for Crypto & Security in docs. #1490
Proposal: change in work mode
- Move from weekly to fortnightly community meetings focused on:
  - Key status updates (progress, blockers, announcements)
  - Discussion and decision on proposals from working groups
- Work to be done in ad-hoc groups
  - Form small, focused groups of active contributors to work on specific topics between meetings
  - Groups self-organize their sessions and bring back recommendations for review and acceptance in the main meeting
Platform Change Request

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

agreed and approved by the community
@qor-lb to update sdv calendar

to 3.

Meta Feature Request: Platform request #1691
- Proposal: tier-based approach similar to how rust compiler handles additional targets - @qor-lb, @opajonk, @odra

0 replies

Eclipse S-CORE

Architecture Community Meeting Minutes #472

Uh oh!

qor-lb Feb 24, 2025 Collaborator

Replies: 29 comments · 5 replies

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Feb 24, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-02-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Formal criteria for contribution selection

Criteria

Functional adherence to feature request

Availability of source code

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

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

Features

FEO

IPC

Log & Trace

Persistency

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vinodreddy-g Feb 25, 2025 Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-03

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 14, 2025 Collaborator Author

RedHat & S-CORE Integration [2025-03-05]

Participants

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vinodreddy-g Mar 10, 2025 Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-10

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 17, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-17

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 24, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 31, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Apr 7, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-07

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

qor-lb Apr 14, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-14

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Apr 28, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-28

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator

Replies: 29 comments 5 replies

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

vinodreddy-g
Feb 25, 2025
Collaborator

qor-lb Mar 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

vinodreddy-g
Mar 10, 2025
Collaborator

qor-lb
Mar 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Mar 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Mar 31, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Apr 7, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Apr 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Apr 28, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
May 5, 2025
Collaborator Author