Two Google-Origin Daemons

Two Google-Origin Daemons

[Patrick Venture]

Brad;

We have two daemons (to start with) that we'd like to send up.  So my
question is, should we put these to live under
openbmc/google-{reponame} or google/{reponame} and point the recipe in
meta-google to google/ or openbmc/ ?

I'm inclined to say the code can live under openbmc/ so that others
can see it, and because it uses openbmc stuff.

Patrick

RE: Two Google-Origin Daemons

[Tanous, Ed]

> We have two daemons (to start with) that we'd like to send up.

What daemons are they?  Are they generic daemons that others might be interested in, or google specific things?

Re: Two Google-Origin Daemons

[Brad Bishop]

> On Aug 28, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Brad;
> 
> We have two daemons (to start with) that we'd like to send up.  So my
> question is, should we put these to live under
> openbmc/google-{reponame} or google/{reponame} and point the recipe in
> meta-google to google/ or openbmc/ ?
> 
> I'm inclined to say the code can live under openbmc/ so that others
> can see it, and because it uses openbmc stuff.

This is fine by me.  It would be nice to know what they do.  I may have
an opinion on what they are called (the repositories).

This highlights a concern I have.  The project could use some formal
criteria for hosting code on openbmc.  Then we could evaluate new
repository requests based on those criteria.  Open to thoughts on that...

> 
> Patrick

Re: Two Google-Origin Daemons

[Patrick Venture]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:47 PM Tanous, Ed <ed.tanous@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > We have two daemons (to start with) that we'd like to send up.
>
> What daemons are they?  Are they generic daemons that others might be interested in, or google specific things?

They both, in this case, do Google specific things (so not the best
example).  One we're aiming to open source for a vendor to then
incorporate, but they both rely heavily on phosphor design (such as
dbus objects, phosphor-networkd, etc)

Re: Two Google-Origin Daemons

[Patrick Venture]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:44 AM Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 2018, at 4:50 PM, Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Brad;
> >
> > We have two daemons (to start with) that we'd like to send up.  So my
> > question is, should we put these to live under
> > openbmc/google-{reponame} or google/{reponame} and point the recipe in
> > meta-google to google/ or openbmc/ ?
> >
> > I'm inclined to say the code can live under openbmc/ so that others
> > can see it, and because it uses openbmc stuff.
>
> This is fine by me.  It would be nice to know what they do.  I may have
> an opinion on what they are called (the repositories).
>
> This highlights a concern I have.  The project could use some formal
> criteria for hosting code on openbmc.  Then we could evaluate new
> repository requests based on those criteria.  Open to thoughts on that...

I'd be ok with announcement emails that spawn discussion leading to
the decision.  Some will be no-brainers, while others may surprise.
Ultimately, I have five things that I'd like to upstream in the coming
weeks, and two are very google, and the other three could go either
way.

>
> >
> > Patrick