[Libre-soc-bugs] [Bug 961] NLnet 2022 Libre-SOC "ongoing" milestone 2022-08-107 (approved, MoU TBD)

[bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=961

--- Comment #19 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #18)
> (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #17)
> > https://libre-soc.org/task_db/report/
> > 
> > bug #737 shows EUR 2500 unallocated to subtasks
> > bug #1035 EUR 4000 and
> 
> afaict the leftover budget is unused for both of those, 

ha ha very funny.  you have no idea how much work is involved
in the in-order core.  i have created a new bug and assigned
the entirety of the remaining budget to it.

where are brd etc. implemented?
https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1120#c5

> so is available for re-assigning.

not a chance.  andrey there is no budget available for ls2 documentation,
i have removed that task and reassigned it to the much higher priority
task of completing the in-order core.


> > bug #1026 shows EUR 5000
> 
> the whole budget is used in bug #1026, like #1025 there are enough subtasks
> that we are constrained by the budget and will have to pick and choose what
> to do.

not a problem.

> the full list of tasks isn't established for #1026 yet since it'll
> likely be partially leftovers from #1025 and I haven't done the subtask
> budget estimation yet.
> 
> > ghostmansd needs for example to say an amount he
> > is happy with to cover v3.1 SFFS 32bit ops in binutils (and
> > insndb if needed), and jacob if you want to move budget from
> > 1035 to 1026 you need to do a full lines/days-estimate on
> > every v3.1 SFFS 32bit op, before moving budget in case it ends
> > up leaving too little.
> 
> as mentioned on IRC, I already finished all non-binutils work for bug #1035
> and I'm happy with the budget. the binutils budget under #1035 is currently
> set to EUR 1000 and ghostmansd seems happy with that, since the work should
> be pretty easy to do.

might be a good idea to double-check given that there is no evidence
that brd (etc.) have been completed, and to give ghostmansd a full
and explicit list https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1147#c0


> > but also bear in mind as i said on IRC, if there *is* spare it
> > should be balanced against LD/ST-322 and Vectorised-Immediates
> > also likely needing extra (particularly VI).
> 
> ok, I missed that on bug #1047 you already did most the work and the extra
> budget would be needed for getting whoever works on it up-to-speed.
> 
> As mentioned on IRC, I don't think we should assign more budget to
> Vectorised-Immediates since I think it should be lower priority than #1025

it's part of the spec and it gets a "one-shot" opportunity to present
EVERYTHING.  therefore it cannot be "de-prioritised".


> therefore, I think we should take the leftover budget from bug #737

there isn't any

>  and bug #1035

you need to re-check the list. there is no evidence that brd/brw/brh
has been done.

and the documentation of the spec - as i said twice now - is a far
higher priority than anything else.  it is the absolute top priority
and the absolute critical dependency on which EVERYTHING depends.

do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES consider the writing of the specification
to be anything other than an absolute top priority task.  if the
specification is wrong or out-of-date it literally jeapordises the
entire project.


> * bug #1146 gets EUR 1000 

**NO**.  i have said this several times now.
there is too much going on already.

adding additional tasks places completion in jeapordy as it reduces
available budget for those tasks. there is far too much already.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.