Skip to content

Commit 781de15

Browse files
MerrimanIndMerrimanInd
authored
Added minutes from 2025-05-30 meeting (#335)
1 parent 17c1483 commit 781de15

1 file changed

Lines changed: 153 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

  • subcommittee/tooling/meetings/2025-05-30

‎subcommittee/tooling/meetings/2025-05-30/minutes.md‎

Lines changed: 153 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
1+
# Tooling Subcommittee Meeting on 30 May 2025 @ 4pm GMT
2+
3+
| Search Key | Description |
4+
|:------------- |:-------------------- |
5+
| \[todo\] | Action Item |
6+
| \[decision\] | Something decided on |
7+
| \[important\] | Key information |
8+
9+
## Agenda
10+
11+
1. Present new members
12+
2. Establish a rotating meeting time (if it is required)
13+
3. Procedures for accepting and submitting tools
14+
15+
## Check-in area
16+
17+
**Please add your name, and an emoji that describes your day.**
18+
19+
* Alexandru Radovici 🙂
20+
* Tony Aiello 😶
21+
* Xander Cesari 🍺
22+
* Munawar Hafiz, 🙂
23+
* Pete LeVasseur, 🥣
24+
* Manuel Hatzl 🙂
25+
* Oreste Bernardi🙂
26+
27+
**Notetaker:**
28+
29+
* Xander Cesari
30+
31+
## Housekeeping section
32+
33+
* ## Tasks
34+
35+
*
36+
37+
## Meeting Minutes
38+
39+
* Rescheduling our meetings to be more friendly to different timezones, specifically getting an Asia/Pacific friendly timeslot
40+
* Coding Guidelines has already rescheduled to have an Asia/Pacific friendly meeting time but haven’t had many meetings. Maybe we could wait to see how their timeslot goes?
41+
* Could we run a casual ‘office hours’ type meeting at an Asia/Pacific friendly time to try to measure interest in that timeslot?
42+
* Zulip has a poll feature, could we just poll the consortium members on who would be interested in joining from those timezones?
43+
* Action: start with a poll in the Zulip tooling channel \[todo\]
44+
* Action: schedule an Asia/Pacific office hours. \[todo\]
45+
* 9am in Japan
46+
* Maybe make it broader than just one subcommittee? A consortium-wide effort to get participation from that region
47+
* [Xander Cesari](mailto:xander.cesari@pictor.us) to host since 8pm US ET time is 9am in Japan. Date will be June 9 or 10\.
48+
* Procedure for accepting and submitting tools
49+
* Xander was developing a GitHub issue template for identifying tooling/process gaps in the Rust ecosystem. Would be relatively simple to build an issue template for “bringing a tool to the attention of the tooling subcomittee consortium”.
50+
* [https://github.com/MerrimanInd/safety-critical-rust-consortium/blob/tooling\_request\_issue\_template/.github/ISSUE\_TEMPLATE/tooling\_gap.yml](https://github.com/MerrimanInd/safety-critical-rust-consortium/blob/tooling_request_issue_template/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/tooling_gap.yml)
51+
* Coding guidelines has already implemented something similar. Additionally there are some GitHub actions behind it.
52+
* [https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/issues/new?template=CODING-GUIDELINE.yml](https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/issues/new?template=CODING-GUIDELINE.yml)
53+
* So what fields should the tooling issue have?
54+
* We need to decide what the procedure should be for “vetting” tools that are submitted through this issue.
55+
* [alexandru.radovici@oxidos.io](mailto:alexandru.radovici@oxidos.io) to work on drafting this procedure
56+
* We should have a contact person for each tool (visible only to us, internal use)
57+
* [Xander Cesari](mailto:xander.cesari@pictor.us) to draft a GitHub issue template
58+
* At the last in-person meeting a list of fields/data we should know about each tool was drafted, this could be drawn
59+
* Are we open to fielding issues without a point-of-contact person who owns the tool?
60+
* Yes, especially if the tool is in use in safety critical development. But we would likely need to go track down the contact before posting it to the website
61+
* GitHub issue for identifying tooling gaps
62+
* There’s a difference between identifying a gap in a process and identifying a tool that might fill it. Should these be two different templates?
63+
* Very difficult to make this type of form rigid and programmatic; there will be many long-form text fields with “describe what you were trying to do”
64+
* Maybe all of these issues should include a ‘process gap’ section with an optional ‘tooling suggestion’ section if the submitter feels they know exactly what tool would close the gap?
65+
66+
## Material
67+
68+
Any material to read before the meeting should be included here.
69+
70+
* ## Tools Information
71+
72+
```
73+
Tools list
74+
- make a list with names of the tools
75+
- tool type tag:
76+
- "coverage"
77+
-> "mc"
78+
-> "dc"
79+
-> "statement"
80+
-> "function"
81+
-> "call"
82+
-> "branch"
83+
-> "test"
84+
- "requirements-traceability"
85+
- "qualified-compiler"
86+
- "test-runner"
87+
- "formal-verification"
88+
- "static-analysis"?
89+
- "tests-generation"
90+
-> "unit"
91+
-> "integration"
92+
- "enforce-guidelines"
93+
- "rust-safety-critical" - will it have levels? @Pete
94+
- "graphical-representation"
95+
- "metrics" - https://www.exida.com/blog/software-metrics-iso-26262-iec-61508 (Section 3.1)
96+
- "cyclomatic-complexity"
97+
- "comment-density"
98+
- "number-of-paths"
99+
- "number-of-goto-statements"
100+
- "number-of-calling-functions"
101+
- "number-of-parameters"
102+
- "instructions-per-function"
103+
- "function-return-points"
104+
- "stability-index"
105+
- "language-scope"
106+
- "recursions"
107+
- "other" -> describe as text
108+
- standard tag and level:
109+
- "ISO 26262"
110+
-> "ASIL A-D" + "QM"
111+
-> "TCL 1-3"
112+
- "DO-178C" -> "DAL A-E"
113+
-> "TQL 1-5"
114+
- "IEC-61508"
115+
-> might not have tool level
116+
- "IEC-62304"
117+
-> "Class A-C"
118+
-> might not have tool level
119+
- applicable environment? - TBD
120+
- std
121+
- core
122+
or
123+
- cloud
124+
- local
125+
- usage level
126+
- production
127+
- research
128+
- prototype
129+
- link to project
130+
- cost
131+
- "free"
132+
- "paid"
133+
- license
134+
- "proprietary"
135+
- ... open source license
136+
- support
137+
- "community"
138+
- "commercial"
139+
- "none"
140+
- 3rd party support
141+
- companies that offer 3rd party support or are willing to enhance it
142+
- developer is interested in providing commercial custom development
143+
- yes
144+
- no
145+
- last date when visited the project (we need a better word)
146+
- rust version? (does it specify a max rust version)`
147+
148+
`Another list for Companies building tools
149+
- link the tools for each company (if possible)
150+
- name
151+
- link
152+
- lis`t of tools (+ tags)
153+
```

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)