Meeting Minutes (TL & Communities & CFTs) #434

johannes-esr · 2025-02-20T15:44:38Z

johannes-esr
Feb 20, 2025
Collaborator

Discussion containing all Meeting Minutes for the TL, Communities & CFT exchange meeting

johannes-esr · 2025-02-20T15:47:26Z

johannes-esr
Feb 20, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-02-24

Participants

Agenda

Feedback from the Technical Leads
1. How to pass tasks between teams #410
  - Proposal: One Label per Community; Sync Meeting on Monday (this meeting)
2. Discussion of Roadmap Planning: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/305
Feedback from the Community Leads
1. Operational
2. Testing
3. Software Development Process
4. Marketing & Communication
Feedback from the CFT Leads
1. Persistency
2. FEO
3. Communication
4. Logging
General/Open Points

Meeting Minutes

1. Usage of labels for communities (community:architecture, community:infrastructure, community:testing, community:process, community:marcom) and CFTs (cft:persistency, cft:feo, cft:communication, cft:logging)
2. Update of Roadmap
3. Define creation of documentation in processes, @johannes-esr

Milestones	Date	Description
Process & Tools enable Development	31.03.2025	Left side of V-Model done. Acceptance Criteria: - Process & Tooling for requirements & architecture is available (`sphinx-needs` incl. additional checks for verifying traceability/consistency). - Process & Tooling for Detailed design, implementation & unit verification defined and implemented (e.g. `spinx-test-reports`). - CI/CD is capable to automatically verify the consistency & traceability. - Tooling for test coverage & static code analysis. Prerequisites: - Selection of tooling (e.g. static code analysis).
Modules Buildable	15.04.2025	All MVP defined features (FEO, IPC, Logging, Common Libraries, Persistency) can be built in software module repositiories. Until then, the modules are handled within the incubation repositories. Acceptance Criteria: - All modules use a common repository template (build, CI, gitlint, README, ...); to be checked by operational whether Git submodule/bazel module can be used to avoid code duplication. - All modules are built with `bazel`, (C++17: `clang` for `x86` Linux with `-Wall`, `-Wextra`, `-pedantic`; Rust: `rustc 1.83.0`). - Unit tests are built and run, also via GitHub Actions. - No strict adherence to coding guidelines, but coding guidelines are available. - How to guide for reference build & test environment. - Result: every software module can be built inside of its repository. No common integration so far, no running image. Prerequisites: - MS "Process & Tools enable Development" mostly done
Reference Integration Linux	15.04.2025	Acceptance Criteria: - A reference integration repository is available which depends on all feature/module repositories and the `score` main repository. - reference Linux image (Docker) is available - There are integration tests available which run on Linux image. - Usecases for the integration tests are defined. Prerequisites: - MS "Process & Tools enable Development" & "Modules Buildable"
Process & Tools enable Testing	31.05.2025	Testing strategy is defined and corresponding tooling is implemented. Acceptance Criteria: - Process and Tooling for Testing (e.g. component or integration tests) are available.
Functional GAP Analysis finished	01.06.2025	- For all existing solutions for Release v0.5 analysis of missing features (GAP analysis) is finished, POCs has confirmed possible implementation solutions and everything is documented in Feature Requests. - Feature Requests are confirmed in the TL round and Software Architecture community, tickets are created and prioritized for implementation accrodingly
QNX Support	01.06.2025	The project supports the QNX toolchain. Acceptance Criteria: - The existing modules can be built with `qcc`. Prerequisites: - QNX Version and license defined
Reference Integration QNX	01.07.2025	Acceptance Criteria: - reference QNX image (Qemu) is available (ethernet) - There are integration tests available which run on QNX images. - Image is built and tested as part of automated CI/CD pipeline. Prerequisites: - 'QNX support' milestone - 'Reference Integration Linux' milestone
S-CORE v0.5 Release Candidate	01.06.2025	The features of the 0.5 MVP are according to the S-CORE processes and all artefacts are created initially. Acceptance Criteria: - All necessary artifacts (requirements, tests, architecture) exist in S-CORE format and are generated/executed in CI pipeline for the Release v0.5 components
Audit on Processes definition completed	01.07.2025	Acceptance Criteria: - All processes are defined. - Samples are available. - Maturity Level: Managed
S-CORE v1.0 specification	01.08.2025	- scope for Release v1.0 is defined in Software Architecture community and agreed with TL/PL-circle. - Feature requests for missing Release v1.0 modules are created and agreed. - POCs are done to show possible implementation approach
Reference Hardware for Release v0.5	01.10.2025	- Reference hardware and reference OS are defined. - Reference hardware farm is connected to S-CORE CI. - Integration tests on hardware are running periodically (e.g. nightly). - Define hardware relevant integration tests, e.g. performance, and corresponding KPIs
Release v0.5 feature complete	01.10.2025	- All Feature requests that are relevant for Release v0.5, including the ones resulting from the GAP analysis, are implemented according to the S-CORE software development process (requirements, architecture, dd, implementation and unit verification, integration tests)
Audit on Processes execution completed	01.10.2025
Tool Evaluation/Qualification prepared	01.10.2025	- List of all used tools available
Tool Evaluation/Qualification completed	01.11.2025
Release v0.5 certifiable	01.12.2025	The features of the 0.5 MVP are in a state to be safety certifiable. Acceptance Criteria: - Release v0.5 components have all necessary working products (also release and config mgmt documents) according to the S-CORE software development process - All corresponding tools are certified
All Audit findings resolved	01.12.2025
Release 0.5 Use Case implementation

gantt
   dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
   title S-CORE Roadmap
   excludes weekends
   tickInterval 1month
   v0.5 Feature Complete : vert, v2, 2025-10-01, 0D
   v0.5 Certifiable : vert, v2, 2025-12-01, 0D

  section Project Milestones
      Release v0.5 feature complete incl. reference QNX integration: milestone, m2, 2025-10-01, 0D
      Release v0.5 Certifiable: milestone, m3, 2025-12-01, 0D
   
  section Software Modules v0.5
      Modules Buildable: done, milestone, m4, 2025-06-02, 0D
      Features follow S-CORE Process: milestone, m5, 2025-10-01, 0D
      GAP Analysis finished: active, milestone, m6, 2025-07-02, 0D

   section Process & Tools
      Process & Tools enable Development: crit, milestone, m7, 2025-07-31, 0D
      Process & Tools enable Testing: crit, milestone, m8, 2025-07-31, 0D
      Audit on Processes definition completed: milestone, m8, 2025-09-01, 0D
      Audit on Processes execution completed: milestone, m8, 2025-10-01, 0D
      Tool Evaluation/Qualification prepared: milestone, m8, 2025-10-01, 0D
      Tool Evaluation/Qualification completed: milestone, m8, 2025-11-01, 0D
      All Audit findings resolved: milestone, m8, 2025-12-01, 0D

   section Reference Environment
      Reference Integration QNX: crit, milestone, m10, 2025-08-01, 0D      
      QNX Support : done, milestone, m11, 2025-06-15, 0D
      Reference Hardware for Release v0.5: milestone, m12, 2025-10-01, 0D

   section Software Modules v1.0
      S-CORE v1.0 specification: active, milestone, m13, 2025-08-01, 0D

Next Steps:

Roadmap to be checked by project members, Feedback in meeting next Monday
@johannes-esr to create tickets for milestones and add milestone description, to be finalized on Monday
Refinement of first milestones in next meeting on Monday

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-02-24T11:04:55Z

johannes-esr
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

2024-03-03

Participants

@johannes-esr
@masc2023
@antonkri
@vinodreddy-g
@arsibo
@FScholPer
@AlexanderLanin
@Dk1601

Agenda

Review of milestone planning done in https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/434#discussioncomment-12265274

Meeting Minutes

- Granularity of planning:
  - Dimension One:
    - Level 0: S-CORE Project (Milestones)
    - Level 1: Sub-Project/Technical committees (Community/CFT via GitHub Label); Level of Project & Technical Leads
    - Level 2: Epic (GitHub Issues) -> assigned to exactly one/multiple Community/CFT via Label; Level of Community/CFT Leads with collaboration of Technical Leads; Planning in common meeting
    - Level 3: Ticket (GitHub Issues) -> assigned to exactly one Community/CFT via Label; Level of Developers/Community Leads/CFT Leads
  - Dimension Two: Roadmap (GitHub Milestones) on Level 0; Epics/Tickets are assigned to the "latest" milestone the Epic has to be done, but can span over multiple Milestones; Level of Technical Leads
- How to do planning yet open; To be discussed within Process Community & Technical Leads
- Tasks:
  - Update PMP Planning Document https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/project_management.html#planning -> @johannes-esr to check in CW11
  - Move created Milestone Tickets to "normal" Milestones -> @johannes-esr before Wednesday
  - Definition of Epics appearing in the first milestones
    - Draft to be prepared in TL meeting on Wednesday
    - Check with Communities/CFTs 10:30 - 12am -> @FScholPer to invite

0 replies

LittleHuba · 2025-02-24T14:15:12Z

LittleHuba
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator

Missing architecture community label

1 reply

HartmannNico Feb 24, 2025
Maintainer

Just added

johannes-esr · 2025-03-10T07:45:08Z

johannes-esr
Mar 10, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-03-10

Participants

@johannes-esr
@antonkri
@masc2023
@vinodreddy-g
@AlexanderLanin
@Dk1601
@guysagnes
@markert-r
@LittleHuba

Agenda

Review TL breakdown of first Milestones https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestones
Next steps: Breakdown of Epics by CFTs/Communities; Re-Assignment of existing Tasks to Epics

Meeting Minutes

Epics = Workpackage which can be done in few weeks (1 - 4 weeks), must be assigned to MS, planning granularity for TL
Tasks = Breakdown of Epic, can also have Subtasks, assigned to same MS as Epic, planning granularity for CFT/Community
For functional grouping of Epics labels are used
Maturity Level of a Epic are included in Epic title
Main planning is done in score Repository

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-03-17T07:52:05Z

johannes-esr
Mar 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-03-17

Participants

Agenda

Presentation of proposal "How to plan"
Planning of first milestones
Where to put Lessons Learned?

Meeting Minutes

@antonkri presented new planning approach
- accepted
- S-CORE Roadmap (view)
- TLs to update planning document: Update Planning in PMP #697
"Lessons learned" also to be saved in official documentation to be visible on website, mostly in Contribute section

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-03-31T07:18:21Z

FScholPer
Mar 31, 2025
Collaborator

2025-03-31

Participants

@qor-lb
@johannes-esr
@AlexanderLanin
@masc2023
@arsibo
@Dk1601
@markert-r

Agenda

Status of each Community (2 minutes)
Milestone planning
- S-CORE Roadmap
- Do we have blockers?
- Does each of us reach the timeline goals
- June Release -> planning?
- Roadmap of the Epics (priority, start date / due date). Does each epic has a subtask?
Questions / Problems?

Meeting Minutes

Status
- Tooling: Epic: (Initial) Set-up basic repository & build infrastructure #585 (comment)
- Logging: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/770 (gap analysis)

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-04-14T08:44:45Z

johannes-esr
Apr 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-04-14

Participants

Meeting Minutes

Review of S-CORE Roadmap Project
TLs need Board for Change Requests (Feature Modification & Component Modification Label) -> @markert-r creates board
@antonkri checks with @ramceb regarding location of FEO tickets

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-04-28T09:00:58Z

johannes-esr
Apr 28, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-04-28

Participants

@johannes-esr
@markert-r
@arsibo
@AlexanderLanin
@LittleHuba
@qor-lb
@masc2023
@guysagnes
@dneail1601
@FScholPer
@antonkri

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view)
- General: Keep tickets up to date!
- Communication, Logging & Base Libs will be published until next week
- FEO: Tickets to be planned
- Persistency
- Testing: Current approach shall be presented
- Process
- Architecture
- Infrastructure

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-04-29T10:54:29Z

FScholPer
Apr 29, 2025
Collaborator

2025-05-05

Participants

@johannes-esr
@AlexanderLanin
@markert-r
@arsibo
@dneail1601
@LittleHuba
@antonkri
@qor-lb
@masc2023
@FScholPer

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view)
- Infrastructure and tooling
  - Community not stuffed enough -> at least 6 full time needed
  - Unclear priorities and scaled like 100 devs -> many wish tickets and no focus
  - gitlint really needed?!
  - https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/977 ??
- 321 Issues open in main repo
Multi-repo apprach
- Enables requirement linkage & traceability between repositories
Process audit next Monday

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-05-12T08:06:41Z

FScholPer
May 12, 2025
Collaborator

2025-05-12

Participants

@johannes-esr
@AlexanderLanin
@markert-r
@arsibo
@dneail1601
@LittleHuba
@antonkri
@masc2023
@FScholPer
@guysagnes

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Review Feature Planning

Infrastructure & Tooling
- @AlexanderLanin mentioned that all repositories can now build documentation. Multi repository is still in progress (Will take about about 1 week to finish).
- Rust on qnx, multirepo setup, linking between repositories.
- @AlexanderLanin proposed to do a regular demo meeting.
- Demo proposal : https://sdvworkinggroup.slack.com/archives/C0894QGRZDM/p1747037795081439?thread_ts=1747037764.219969&cid=C0894QGRZDM"
- Question about state of template repositories from @antonkri. @AlexanderLanin answered that a decision was made that one part tests without and the other with the template
Testing
- @dneail1601 mentioned that Concept of C++ is finished. The community wants to wait until real production code is available not only demo code -> https://github.com/qorix-group/Score-Testing/blob/main/Proposal/Data%20flow%20tests%20with%20gtest%20combined%20with%20extended%20unit%20tests%20-%20compilable.cpp
- @AlexanderLanin said that we should order the tests in order of duration.
- Daniel said that their is a discussion if only unit tests should be fixed by the developers and the broken other tests should be fixed be the testers
- @AlexanderLanin asked about release strategy meeting. Daniel proposed to postpone the discussion until their is real code.
- @antonkri proposed to the test community that we need a test plan who does what and so on.
- TL will check
FEO
- Currently they wait until the Process Pilot is finished
- @markert-r said they should use the blocking label
- @antonkri We need feature requirements and epics for described for each release (due date 05.30 for existing and the rest 06.06.)
- Until next meeting setup cft for common libs should be done -> TL should do that in next TL meeting
Persistency
- Feature priority for file system base unclear
  - C++ api & implementation already there in common libs
  - Com & Persistency will make a meeting AI: @LittleHuba & @guysagnes
- C++ Class Result dependency to common/base libs
- Security Layer in Persistency should be discussed in the architecture community
Logging
- Components Requirements next step
- Gap Analysis is finished
Communication
- Next task Requirements & Architecture fitting to pilots to be created
- Requirements sync mechanism has to be defined in each company
- Proposal for Snapshot mechanism to feo already there: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/861#discussioncomment-13040972
Question if feature architecture is interconnection between features or if it is high level description -> should be high level description -> discussion with @hoe-jo to be done

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-19T09:04:15Z

qor-lb
May 19, 2025
Collaborator

2025-05-19

Participants

@guysagnes
@dneail1601
@markert-r
@AlexanderLanin
@antonkri
@FScholPer
Padmakumara Malikaarachige Damith Lakmal

Agenda

Review Feature Planning

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

Infrastructure
- "initial" process & tools enable development done (basic setup)
  - Further development for tool support once concrete gaps are identified
  - Pilots to identify gaps in basic setups
  - Clear responsibilities for infrastructure in both C++ & Rust pilots to enable gap analysis in community
  - Epic: Process Pilot #760
Communication
- LoLa is now buildable; 0.5 gap analysis on-going
- To be clarified: Com API for 0.5 or 1.0 (+ Rust support)
Testing
- Testing examples for 0.5 modules in progress and planned until end of May
- Epic: Process Pilot #760 to also target piloting the verification as a follow-up
FEO
- missing attendees, skipped
Persistency
- Feature for file system alignment with existing part of baseLib to be taken to Gap analysis
- Security Layer in Persistency rely on system, no additional security parameter to be handled
- Requirement review based on: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1069/process/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_inspection_checklist.html
- Persistence Feature KVS
  - Final review/rework on feature level
  - Draft architecture based on template (Pilot)
  - Draft component requirement based on template (Pilot)
- C++ KVS implementation
  - PoC Implementation of Wrapper over Rust
  - Decision: specific implementation of C++ Library
Logging
- Logging is now buildable; 0.5 gap analysis on-going
- missing attendees, skipped

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-05-26T08:44:01Z

johannes-esr
May 26, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-05-26

Participants

@johannes-esr
@Dk1601
@timkl7
@antonkri
@AlexanderLanin
@arsibo

Meeting Minutes & Agenda

Review Roadmap
- Communication:
  - Epic: LoLa buildable & existing tests runnable #586 can be marked as done
  - Epic: Functional gap analysis for feature "Communication" #881 will be done by @LittleHuba
  - Epic: Create requirements for feature "Communication" #886, Epic: Create architecture artifacts for feature "Communication" #937 will be checked until next Monday
- Logging:
  - Epic: Logging buildable & existing tests runnable #587 must be cleaned up, to be checked if everything builds
  - Epic: Functional gap analysis for feature "Logging" #884 to be updated in Logging meeting tomorrow
  - Epic: Create requirements for feature "Logging" #939, Epic: Create architecture artifacts for feature "Logging" #942 in progress, to be updated in Logging meeting tomorrow
- FEO:
  - Overview of what CI jobs are running
  - Epic: Functional gap analysis for feature "Fixed Execution Order" #883, to be checked if something is missing
  - Epic: Create requirements for feature "FEO" #938, Epic: Create architecture artifacts for feature "FEO" #941: first PRs are present
- Persistency:
  - Update to be checked afterwards
- Testing:
  - PoC for Persistency in review
  - Will be presented on testing meeting wednesday, afterwards roll out
- Process: no representative present
- Infrastructure:
  - Problems with proxies, to be analyzed
  - Workstream meetings organized: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1095#discussioncomment-13248530

Offline report
Summary for the Persistency FT

Feature Request for Persistency · Issue #95 · eclipse-score/score -> closed
Focus on Key-Value Store, File system aspect will be part of the gap analysis
Persistency Feature KVS
- Final release on feature level
- Review started: architecture based on template (Pilot)
- Review started: component requirement based on template (Pilot)
C++ KVS implementation
- Implementation started: specific implementation of C++ Library
Info - Requirements handling follows Reference:
- requirements_inspection_checklist
- requirements_templates
Clarification requested
- How should be the separation on module level in respect to selected language?
  -> Proposition a single repository containing the different language (Rust / C++)
  -> Process adaptation for the template to be adapted
- Do we have the plan to use at least C++ 2020 and when?
  -> Question related to maps handling inside C++ 2017
- How is the design constrain to be taken in account for dynamical types (e.g. String, Vector, …)
  -> MISRA rules reported type – Ref. rules 21.6.1 / 21.6.2

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-06-02T08:57:53Z

johannes-esr
Jun 2, 2025
Collaborator Author

2026-06-02

Participants

@johannes-esr
@vinodreddy-g
@guysagnes
@AlexanderLanin
@arsibo
@PiotrKorkus
@Dk1601
@FScholPer
@aschemmel-tech
@markert-r

Meeting Minutes

Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view)
Communication: No update available
Logging:
- Buildable: Probably can be closed after adding README file
- Gap Analysis & Requirements ongoing
FEO:
- Gap Analysis, Requirements & Architecture ongoing
Persistency:
- Also tracked in process pilots
Testing:
- ITF set up in progress
- CFT Lead will be taken over by @PiotrKorkus
Process:
- Update tickets that cannot be done to another epic
Infrastructure:
- Rust started, overall ongoing
- C++ Stream needed? -> @eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads
Baselibs
- Feature Team needed -> @eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-06-05T12:43:46Z

FScholPer
Jun 5, 2025
Collaborator

2025-06-16

Participants

@masc2023
@FScholPer
@markert-r
@antonkri
@qor-lb
@PiotrKorkus
@guysagnes
@TomFleischmann
Daniel Klotz

Agenda

S-CORE Roadmap

Meeting Minutes

##Modules builable

Persistency Full test Coverage will be there until next week

QNX Support

Process for : Safe Use of QNX -> AI: @aschemmel-tech
QNX Support -> Refinement Meeting should be set up -> AI: @antonkri

Functional Gap Analysis

Architectural Gap Analysis is in Progress currently
Persistency: KVS already done but Filesystem open
Communication -> no update

Process Definition Audit Completed

ITF will probably not feasible until End of July -> Change to another milestone because not needed for next Audit

Process and Tools Enable Development

Rust is ongoing
@markert-r will request @FScholPer to get some support for initial Setup

Functional Gap Analysis S-CORE v.0.5 Completed

Also Planning finished is needed for implementation of the gaps
Persistency: Filesystem is part of 1.0 and should be created as feature request

2026-06-23

Participants

@FScholPer
@qor-lb
@PiotrKorkus
@masc2023

Agenda

S-CORE Roadmap

Meeting Minutes

Testing

The duedate of some ITF Tickets have been moved to later date. Could be last week of July

Process

Friday Audit needs Quality Management until end of this week
@qor-lb asked about the status of the Audit findings: Tickets created -> https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/releases/tag/v1.0.0 & https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/releases/tag/v1.0.1
Infrastructure Community had meeting with Process Community to align gap analysis
Where is the first Assessment to go over the Pilots -> October
First Version of Tool Requirements already merged in doc-as-code repository
Could be an overlap between Tool Requirements and Sphinx Needs Extension Implementation / Commercial Offering
Doc-as-Code not acessible from main S-CORE page

0 replies

nmohanan31 · 2025-09-29T08:03:01Z

nmohanan31
Sep 29, 2025
Collaborator

2025-09-29

Participants

Manuel Fehlhammer
@FScholPer
@PiotrKorkus
@masc2023
@AlexanderLanin
Bogdan Badicu
@4og
@hth9fe
@arsibo
TSI - C.A.Brayan

Meeting Minutes & Agenda

Review S-CORE Roadmap (view)
- [QCC] Toolchain roll out in I-Gate #1545 - Tool chain roll out in I-gate is in progress but complier flag work will take more then 2 weeks time
- fix toolchains for baselibs and communication #1737 - C++ tool chain Nikola R is currently working on it and is having issues with baselibs and communication
- [Rust] Compilation for Linux in I-Gate #1550 - Compilation for Linux and QNX is in progress
- [R&A] Checks roll out in I-Gate #1587 and [R&A] Execution of checks for every C++ component in I-Gate #1588 is work planned in iteration 5 to perform automated and manual checks in I-gate
- [FIT] Introduce framework #1562 - Test framework is currently in progress
- [Doc] Document generation #1561 - The second acceptance criteria is basically a new feature
- Agree on S-Core v0.5 "must have" process requirements #1782 - Discussion is required to make it clear what the developer needs to do with the requirements. Especially the manual requirements

Action items

Discuss in architecture community that all new tickets should be aligned to a feature epic: @qor-lb
Find a meeting slot for Static code analysis: @FScholPer
Add test tickets to the parent epics: @PiotrKorkus
To split [Doc] Document generation #1561 and generally the documentation work into separate tickets and align them to the iterations: @AlexanderLanin
Schedule a meeting with @antonkri for clarifying Agree on S-Core v0.5 "must have" process requirements #1782 - @FScholPer
Use the Thursday slot to review the PR from Thomas and Johannes for planning: @FScholPer @nmohanan31

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-10-06T08:31:48Z

johannes-esr
Oct 6, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-10-06

Participants

@johannes-esr
@PiotrKorkus
@masc2023
@arsibo
Mohamed Bejijou (Valeo)
@4og
@AlexanderLanin
@hth9fe
@FScholPer
@antonkri
@nmohanan31

Meeting Minutes & Agenda

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-10-06T11:41:54Z

johannes-esr
Oct 6, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-10-06 / Iteration Planning Infrastructure

Participants

@johannes-esr
@antonkri
@AlexanderLanin
@olivembo
@hth9fe
@nick-hildebrant-etas
@nmohanan31

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view), especially regarding Infrastructure Tickets

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-10-07T10:11:50Z

johannes-esr
Oct 7, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-10-07 / Iteration Planning Testing

Participants

@johannes-esr
@antonkri
@PiotrKorkus
@draganbjedov
@nmohanan31
@hth9fe

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view), especially regarding Testing Tickets

0 replies

johannes-esr · 2025-10-09T12:18:07Z

johannes-esr
Oct 9, 2025
Collaborator Author

2025-10-13

Participants

@johannes-esr
@masc2023
@PiotrKorkus
@dcalavrezo-qorix
@antonkri
@hth9fe
@LittleHuba
@nmohanan31
@lurtz
@calbryan1
@4og
@FScholPer
Kai Hudalla
@arsibo
@AlekhyaBendhi

Agenda

10:00 - 10:30 am: Infrastructure & Process Community

To have the integration repo to be abled to be compiled is the goal to enable the infra team
Currently BMW is working on making baselibs and communication to be compiled with the current tool chain
Target QNX 8.X and arm but start with x86
Should we have linux support with the raspberry-pi?
The status of the coding guidelines is unclear ([Coding Style] Definition of C++ coding style rules #1548)
- Easiest would be to set up a clang format check code analysis rules
- The main task is to setup the CI job
- Python formatting needs a centralized set of rules from ruff rather that have different ones in each repo.
  - We can use what is currently in Orchestration. This can be discussed once the PR is in
    10:30 - 10:45 am: Testing & Reference Integration
Qnx QEMU is a separate module currently but needs to a bazel registry. We need a good name for it.
10:45 - 11:00 am: Feature Teams

Action Items:

[ ] Define Linux OS distribution from the infra and tool chain point of view: @dcalavrezo-qorix
[ ] Check with Thilo if he can approve the PR from @dcalavrezo-qorix : @FScholPer
[ ] To schedule a follow up to discuss the way forward with Clangtidy: @FScholPer , @antonkri

0 replies

nmohanan31 · 2025-10-27T10:01:11Z

nmohanan31
Oct 27, 2025
Collaborator

2025-10-27

Participants

@FScholPer
@nmohanan31
@PiotrKorkus
@arsibo
@4og
@AlexanderLanin
@masc2023
@PiotrKorkus
and few more : )

Agenda

0.5 Alpha release
Work flow in Github tickets
module names
Eclipse escalation process

Meeting minutes

0.5 Alpha release

0.5 Alpha release scope
- Communication, base-libs and persistency will be released
- Please create a separate ticket under [C++] Components Feature Complete #1549 or [Rust] Components Feature Complete #1552 respectively which has the check list from Prepare s-core v0.5 alpha release #1925
  - The expectation on the requirements and architecture is best effort
  - The QNX QEMU image is expected to run on x_86 and aarch64 but to have it working on raspberry pi is a nice to have

Work flow in Github tickets

We need to describe the workflow in the PMP
The Epics is created at Score level and the sub issues can be created in the respective repository.
- As long as the S-Core road map check box is ticked while creating the sub issues in the respective repo, it will show up in the over all S-CORE planning board.

Module names and bazel registry names

We should all have score_ as the start of the module name
the names of the module can be decided by the module owners/Feature community
The only condition is that the module name should not be too long
We should have v_ for creating bazel registry Release documentation

Eclipse escalation process

The only current way is via Christian Heissenberger or the Eclipse help desk
We do not have any other way to speed up the process.

Action Items:

Update the PMP with the ticket workflow to show people how to create tickets in Github
To schedule a session to go through the Issue workflow in S-CORE and discuss with the feature teams

0 replies

AlexanderLanin · 2025-11-03T08:56:04Z

AlexanderLanin
Nov 3, 2025
Collaborator

2025-11-03

Participants

...

Agenda

0.5 Alpha release

Meeting minutes

Release of November -> high expectations from the outside world
TL changed Scope of the release Prepare s-core v0.5 alpha release #1925 (out of scope is process artifact)
- c++ logging currently part of baselibs. Rust logging is out of scope
- Changed the name i-gate to configured PR / Release workflows
Most of the artifacts should stay in the main repo, except reference_implemenation as "golden example"
Release Notes needed in the central repo for every module which is in scope.
- create new template for the release notes
- link to release notes for the main repo
New meeting for merging of the modules should be set up

0.5 Alpha release

Current Status

Prepare s-core v0.5 alpha release #1925
reference_integration has a manual one time integration of persistency, communication, logging, baselibs, orchestrator (PR in review)
- multiple pending TODOs for each module
OS: Linux x86

Open Points

logging not up to date in https://github.com/eclipse-score/.github/blob/main/profile/README.md
QNX not yet supported in s-core (do all modules compile? baselibs, communication? QNX qemu not included in reference_integration)
not yet included: feo, ITF
modules are not up to date, proposal: module teams push updates via PR to reference_integration (use commit hash in git_override.MODULE.bazel)
documentation is currently only per module + no versioning --> @AlexanderLanin, @a-zw, @ubmarco
eclipse release???
Perform integration test on reference_integration
tutorial "score book" review

Release:

release: we'll freeze+tag reference_integration integration (optional: tag in all repos)
release artifacts not covered yet, e.g:
- test results
- bazel registry entry (optional)
- binaries
- full package
- docs: requirements + arch
- License + OSS scan results
- SCA

2 replies

a-zw Nov 3, 2025
Collaborator

documentation is currently only per module + no versioning

It is not clear to me what exactly is open here. Could someone create an issue for this?

AlexanderLanin Nov 3, 2025
Collaborator

Derived tasks for infrastructure-community:

Set-up preliminary codeowners on the bazel_registry repository -> @AlexanderLanin @FScholPer
Convert all TODO statements in reference_integration to actual issues in the respective modules -> @AlexanderLanin
Provide versioned docs in reference_integration (MVP: downloadable zip with all docs) -> @AlexanderLanin
Clarify dependencies between scramble and reference_integration -> @AlexanderLanin @antonkri
Align exact version name. From a technical point of view we have a naming schema in score. The closest we can use is v0.5.0-alpha, which will be followed up by v0.5.0-beta and then v0.5.0. -> @AlexanderLanin @antonkri
Contrary to all other repos, reference_integration will follow that "marketing naming" -> @AlexanderLanin
sync reference_integration and qnx_qemu-integration. -> @AlexanderLanin

Most notably:

Adding or updating modules to reference_integration is to be handled by respective feature teams.

AlexanderLanin · 2025-11-07T23:25:51Z

AlexanderLanin
Nov 7, 2025
Collaborator

2025-11-10

Participants

...

Agenda

bypass: we are establishing mandatory checks in repositories. Those will fail occasionally and without bypass-ability no-one except eclipse can fix those repositories. On the other hand obviously bypass allows check and process violations. Trigger: add os_images repo .eclipsefdn#100

Meeting minutes

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-11-17T09:54:10Z

FScholPer
Nov 17, 2025
Collaborator

2025-11-17

Participants

@vbogdanb
@nmohanan31
@FScholPer
@PiotrKorkus
Mohammed Beijijou
@aschemmel-tech
@arsibo
@LittleHuba

Agenda

Refinement Roadmap Board

Meeting Minutes

add feature requirements for logging #1024 move to 1.0
[C++] Components Feature Complete #1549 -> close epic with belongs to
mw::com: Full API support in Rust #1214 & mw::com: Full testability for the user facing C++ API #1216 -> move to v1.0
[Ref Image] Demo applications in Reference QNX Integration #1554 -> close
[Ref Image] RedHat Linux image in Qemu #1556 -> close
[Ref Image] (Initial) Linux container arm64 is up and running #598 -> move to beta
[Ref Image] QNX support #1013 Refinement needed
[Ref Image] Nightly executions #1327 AI: @AlexanderLanin will merge with the old issue
[Static Code Analysis] Implementation of automated checks (initial scope) #1744 & [Static Code Analysis] Definition of static code analysis checks (compiler + clang-tidy) #1558 merge
Tooling: Enable rust development #80 -> Refinement Wednesday Rust meeting
[R&A] Define & integrate tooling #1560 & [R&A] Implementation of automated checks #1586 -> v0.5 beta
[FIT] Introduce framework #1562 -> AI: @PiotrKorkus refine
[Doc] Document generation #1561 -> AI: @AlexanderLanin Refinement
[Doc] Creation of "how-to" documentation #1599 -> can be closed. Already in the handbook
Agree on S-Core v0.5 "must have" process requirements #1782 -> check which is done
create new label for score-0.5 beta and rename the existent to 0.5 alpha
Certification board: ask @pawelrutkaq to do a meeting
Epic: (Update) Platform/Project Management Plan #860 TL need plan
JSON library qualification using TSF (C++) #1460 refinement after decision about nlohmann_json and tsf pilot
Epic: Rest of "initial setup" #768 -> refinement needed.

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-11-24T09:45:12Z

FScholPer
Nov 24, 2025
Collaborator

2025-11-17

Participants

@FScholPer
@antonkri
@arsibo
Fan Yefeng
@masc2023
@PiotrKorkus
Mina Hamdi
@pawelrutkaq

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Scope for v0.5 alpha -> https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-15039732
- @4og will come up with a proposal.
New Security Meeting in Eclipse Calendar -> everyone please participate if interested
Image would be a wish
Scope discussion of v0.5 final
Branch changes for v0.5 in separate branch -> discuss in infrastructure community
tps://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-15039732

17 replies

opajonk Dec 2, 2025
Collaborator

as i said once doing release X there is already features from Y landing on master meanwhile. We saw it in baselib already, we will see it in orchestration soon and it will repeat ;)

Well, no automation will prevent that from happening, only proper planning and release-branch-cutting will...

pawelrutkaq Dec 2, 2025
Collaborator

thats why we shall simply document git workflow strategy for releases activities ;)

a-zw Dec 2, 2025
Collaborator

It is not rocket science but it is costly.

Thanks for posting this. This link actually explains that the always-green-main indeed is very costly - if you do not do it.

I have yet to find any manager seriously considering this. The additional compute cost of "rerun PR tests just because main branch changed" was always a killer argument against this approach.

no automation will prevent that from happening

Is it a bad thing though?

Also, why does it even matter what is on the main branch? Isn't it about the tagged versions where we can easily use an older version for a release?

opajonk Dec 2, 2025
Collaborator

thats why we shall simply document git workflow strategy for releases activities ;)

Thumbs up! (except for tracking releases with another branch, originally called master - I never saw an actual use-case for that..)

opajonk Dec 2, 2025
Collaborator

I have yet to find any manager seriously considering this. The additional compute cost of "rerun PR tests just because main branch changed" was always a killer argument against this approach.

Well, the magic sauce there is called "merge queues", which really are a game-changer in my experience. That is for sure a tricky one to do on multi-repos, but "tricky" is no excuse if it saves tons of time (money). I know managers like money, so there is the argument for convincing them. Finding issues automatically, early, is cheaper than finding them late. And to be honest: this is nothing I would ask a manager to decide. It is purely a technical decision.

Also, why does it even matter what is on the main branch? Isn't it about the tagged versions where we can easily use an older version for a release?

No, the point is: we need this vice-versa: you cannot tag a version if it was not already integrated successfully with the rest of the modules.

nmohanan31 · 2025-12-01T09:05:23Z

nmohanan31
Dec 1, 2025
Collaborator

2025-12-01

Participants

@masc2023
@FScholPer
@nmohanan31
@PiotrKorkus
@pawelrutkaq
@4og
@christian99
@LittleHuba
@mina hamdi
@arsibo

Agenda

Beta Release

Meeting Minutes

Beta release

Discussed the beta release points from the Tech lead circle meeting: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516?sort=new#discussioncomment-15121661
We would like unit tests for every module in reference integration reps
- There are issues for running unit tests in the reference integration which Piotr K. is investigating
CodeQL to be used for static code analysis
We would like to have a downloadable image of the release as well

Action Items

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-12-08T08:26:00Z

FScholPer
Dec 8, 2025
Collaborator

2025-12-08

Participants

@nmohanan31
@PiotrKorkus
@FScholPer
@AlexanderLanin
@4og
@mohamed bejijou
@masc2023
@sankurm
@vbogdanb
@pawelrutkaq

Agenda

Score v0.5 beta tracking Scope v0.5 Beta release preparation #2219
To check on the Monday meeting for volunteers for release team: @nmohanan31
To check internally who would volunteer for release team and then work on a proposal for the releases: @tls
Update on Unit Testing and Code Coverage -> @PiotrKorkus
Each module should tag the version (Write go / no go routine)
Static Code analysis (Current State)

Meeting Minutes

Beta release

The beta release is planned to be released from the main branch. If there are issues we simply release a branch
- Moving component requirements to module repository may not happen for the beta release. (Pilot: Baselibs)
- The process description new version will be released
- We have to change the doc-as-code for the platform to 2.2.0
- We will plan to use and test the new C++ toolchain for the beta release
- For the gcc toolchain we will use the latest version from the bazel registry

Unit tests coverage in reference_integration repo

There is an issue for reporting unit tests coverage in reference_integration repo. BMW is currently looking into this issue.
- As a mitigation we would collect the coverage reports from each feature repos
- Issue to discuss solution

Go no go status

Communities to give a go - no go status for the beta release by the 15th of December 2025
- Kyron requires approval for : allow_merge_commit for kyron repo .eclipsefdn#109 from eclipse foundation

Release team

@AlexanderLanin, is interested to be a team member.
If any one is available for this team and would like to drive the release process, please reach out to @nmohanan31
We are looking to create a AutoSD image for the release that can be downloaded

Static code analysis

CodeQL not working with the C++ toolchain in S-core
The status for rust modules is not clear. Action item taken.

Action Items

To create a PR in reference_integration for testing the unit test coverage solution: @PiotrKorkus
To discuss the the unit test issue with Persistency: @nmohanan31
Reach out to Markus H. /Persistency to understand the status of static code analysis for rust modules: @tls

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-12-15T08:59:57Z

FScholPer
Dec 15, 2025
Collaborator

2025-12-15

Participants

@masc2023
@PiotrKorkus
@vbogdanb
@FScholPer
@AlexanderLanin
@arsibo
@antonkri
@anmittag
@LittleHuba
basheer.fz
@pawelrutkaq

Agenda

Score v0.5 beta tracking Scope v0.5 Beta release preparation #2219
- baselibs prepared 0.2.1 (@PiotrKorkus please contact @antonkri for additional changes)
- communication 0.1.2 not yet released (@LittleHuba please add the release notes in main-repo as well)
- persistency 0.2.2 not yet available (@vbogdanb arch/req/docu should be updated; please check all open PRs)
- feo 1.0.3, but not available, UT-PR missing => @johannes-esr
- orchestration is blocked by QNX for the new toolchain (@pawelrutkaq is working on it; details in the afternoon integration meeting)
- logging daemon planned to be open-sourced, but most probably not part of the release (@antonkri / @arsibo )
- scrample 0.1.1 updates to latest bazel version (@antonkri)
- scenarios: 0.3.1 tests are prepared
- toolchain: release notes: give an outlook for future work
- bazel-platform 0.0.3
- processes: 1.4.0, copy https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipse-score/process_description/bec1931b56464543cb70385e75c15fcb1625f0d0/process/_assets/score_process_area_overview.drawio.svg to main documentation
- only deltas shall be documented (alpha -> beta)
Update on Unit Testing and Code Coverage -> @PiotrKorkus
- Run Unit Tests in the ref integration (@PiotrKorkus)
  - Open Pull Requests for every c++ component, so that all UTs are executed automatically
To check on the Monday meeting for volunteers for release team: @nmohanan31
To check internally who would volunteer for release team and then work on a proposal for the releases: @tls
Each module should tag the version (Write go / no go routine)
Static Code analysis (Current State)

1 reply

PiotrKorkus Dec 15, 2025
Collaborator

Please find draft of UTs execution in reference_integration repository: eclipse-score/reference_integration#55

To run execute scripts/run_unit_tests.sh

Current status:

❌ [baselibs] - error in @score_baselibs//score/json/examples:json_buffer
❌ [communication] - error from trlc in score_communication//score/mw/com/requirements/feature_requirements
✅ [persistency]
✅ [orchestrator]
✅ [kyron]
✅ [feo]

Eclipse S-CORE

Meeting Minutes (TL & Communities & CFTs) #434

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Feb 20, 2025 Collaborator

Replies: 38 comments · 24 replies

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Feb 20, 2025 Collaborator Author

2025-02-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Feb 24, 2025 Collaborator Author

2024-03-03

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

LittleHuba Feb 24, 2025 Collaborator

Uh oh!

HartmannNico Feb 24, 2025 Maintainer

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Mar 10, 2025 Collaborator Author

2025-03-10

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Mar 17, 2025 Collaborator Author

2025-03-17

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FScholPer Mar 31, 2025 Collaborator

2025-03-31

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Apr 14, 2025 Collaborator Author

2025-04-14

Participants

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Apr 28, 2025 Collaborator Author

2025-04-28

Participants

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FScholPer Apr 29, 2025 Collaborator

2025-05-05

Participants

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FScholPer May 12, 2025 Collaborator

2025-05-12

Participants

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

qor-lb May 19, 2025 Collaborator

2025-05-19

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

johannes-esr May 26, 2025 Collaborator Author

2025-05-26

Participants

Meeting Minutes & Agenda

Uh oh!

johannes-esr Jun 2, 2025 Collaborator Author

johannes-esr
Feb 20, 2025
Collaborator

Replies: 38 comments 24 replies

johannes-esr
Feb 20, 2025
Collaborator Author

johannes-esr
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

LittleHuba
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator

HartmannNico Feb 24, 2025
Maintainer

johannes-esr
Mar 10, 2025
Collaborator Author

johannes-esr
Mar 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

FScholPer
Mar 31, 2025
Collaborator

johannes-esr
Apr 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

johannes-esr
Apr 28, 2025
Collaborator Author

FScholPer
Apr 29, 2025
Collaborator

FScholPer
May 12, 2025
Collaborator

qor-lb
May 19, 2025
Collaborator

johannes-esr
May 26, 2025
Collaborator Author

johannes-esr
Jun 2, 2025
Collaborator Author

FScholPer
Jun 5, 2025
Collaborator