Community CCB Notes: April 08 2020

Notes for CCB Meeting on April 08, 2020

All notes enclosed in

comment blocks

Other topics:

• Trying out using GitHub Wiki for Agenda and Notes
• Version Numbers: Release number follows SemVer. The main discussion revolves around numbering development updates.

In-Progress Integration Candidate: 2020-04-01

• OSAL PR#396 doesn't work with current cFE using OMIT_DEPRECATED. Here are some options:
  • Keep the merge pending and update the bundle without OSAL until the cFE update is implemented
  • Publish regardless of OMIT_DEPRECATED not working since the bundle works otherwise
  • Code-fence the newly "broken" cFE functionailty with it's own OMIT_DEPRECATED tags

@astrogeco will choose either the first or last option and proceed with merge

Review PRs:

cFE

1. PR #574: Fix #573 update RTEMS example Toolchain

APPROVED

2. PR #585: Fix #581, Propagate the OSAL compile definitions to CFE build

APPROVED

OSAL

1. PR #402: Fix #232, pthread stack min typo

APPROVED

2. PR #404: OSAL build cleanup (multiple issues)

APPROVED

3. PR #405: Fix #397, Remove old unit test example, add README.md, further macro cleanup

APPROVED

PSP

1. PR #146: Fix #145, Update RTEMS CMake module - APPROVED
2. PR #148: Fix #135, Add separate CMakeLists.txt for each implementation
3. PR #149: Fix #121, Unify CFE PSP with OSAL BSP - APPROVED

ci_lab

1. PR #46: Fix #121, Unify CFE PSP with OSAL BSP

Definition of message IDs is a concern. Will need to be split up into multiple pieces

to_lab

1. PR #149: Fix #121, Unify CFE PSP with OSAL BSP

Definition of message IDs is a concern. Will need to be split up into multiple pieces

sch_lab

1. PR #38: Fix #37, Opaque CFE_SB_MsgId_t values

Definition of message IDs is a concern. Will need to be split up into multiple pieces

sample_app

1. PR #54: Fix #53, Opaque CFE_SB_MsgId_t values

Definition of message IDs is a concern. Will need to be split up into multiple pieces

Other Topics, PRs, and issues

• OSAL build cleanup (multiple issues) #404

Generally, everyone likes the concept. @acudmore to review by the end of the week. Consider breaking up.

• Fix #245, Opaque CFE_SB_MsgId_t values #592

Architecture/design change - requires further review. Will likely be pushed to a later date (Fall timeframe?). Will need to break up into smaller pieces/commit. At a minimum split commit into 2 parts for use of application of message ID to value function.

• Fix# 543, Expose CFE_SB_GetPktType #593

Conditionally approved. Change such that 0 value is invalid. @jphickey is planning to submit an additional comment/change request offline