Re: Defining Baserock [WAS: Re: Next steps for Baserock: scope/tooling/infrastructure]

On 18/05/17 10:48, Paul Sherwood wrote: I think this is a good move. Firstly, if Baserock just provides software build and integration instructions it makes it much easier to explain what it is. It's "A set of BuildStream definitions for producing operating systems". It as we've proved over the last few years.can usefully be compared with Yocto or Debian or anything else that provides OS build instructions. Trove is an interesting thing in my opinion and part of me likes the idea of "a server appliance that helps you follow best practices" but that description has the same issue as many of our old ideas of what Baserock is: it doesn't actually tell you what it *does*. So I would be in favour of splitting Trove up into "a Git importing and mirroring service", and whatever other parts are needed. We can write a "best practices for developing OSes with BuildStream" document that recommends mirroring all your code, and recommends setting up whatever we think is the best Git server, and whatever we think is the best Git import and mirror service, and whatever else. When writing that document, if it turns out that there's no good existing solution we can make one from the ashes of Trove. However I think the current concept of Trove should die along with the current concept of Baserock as they are both too nebulous. This depends on resources. I would be happy if Baserock gains enough resources to provide stable branches and security updates. Without an ongoing commitment of engineering time to make that possible, I would prefer for us to describe it as an unstable semi-maintained playground because in practice that's what it'll be. Sam -- Sam Thursfield, Codethink Ltd. Office telephone: +44 161 236 5575