[Libre-soc-dev] State of some tasks needs clarification

[Jacob Lifshay]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 08:59 Dmitry Selyutin <ghostmansd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi folks, sorry for a long absence, I've been extremely occupied with
> family-related activities.
>

no problem

Luke, thank you for the updates!
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:12 PM lkcl <luke.leighton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > done
>
> Thank you!
>
> >> Some tasks seem to
> >> be outdated.
> >> 1. 1054, 1056,
> >
> > these need a writeup (by someone other than me)
>
> Jacob, could you handle this, please?
>

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to write for 1054, luke, any hints?

1056 looks very much not complete (15 items still marked as TODO). for
1056, if you need money right away, one thing we did before on other grants
is to create a subtask for all work done up till now and mark that as
completed.

>
>> 4. 1119: comment #4 mentions there's plenty of budget to do that, but
> >> it still has no budget assigned. :-)
> >
> > see parent  https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1035 there is
> > EUR 7,000. someone (not me) has to decide how much is fair to
> > allocate to 11119 then action it and then run budget-sync to make sure
> > they did not destroy the Accounting / Audit / Financial Records.
>

dmitry, does EUR 800 total sound good? 400 for me, 100 for lkcl, 300 for
you (I expect it to be just a few lines of code since you only need to add
SVP64 support to the insns i'm assuming already exist in binutils, so a lot
of the payment covers time emailing back and forth)

> >
> >> 5. 1003: we had a lot of plans concerning new visitors. At least
> >> binutils can be rewritten. But have we ever created tasks for these
> >> activities?
> >
> > no that is something that, again, other people need to do and take
> > responsibility for.  cavatools is where the majority of tasks involving
> > use of visitors is.
>
> OK, I'll handle tasks related to binutils.
> 1. Create one subtask under 1035, and assign some budget from 1035.

2. Transfer a bit of the budget for 1119 from 1035.
>
i can do that if you like, or you can...

> 3. As for visitor-related, I think 979 and 980 fit this best, as
> binutils continuation. I think I'll cut one of these tasks (or even
> both) into parts. One part will be "backend-agnostic C code
> generation", which is reused by binutils. I assume we cannot change
> the budget for any of these tasks, but we can decompose them into
> subtasks. Is it correct?
>

that's generally correct. the budget can be changed but we have to get that
approved by nlnet (and the auditors?), so it will be much easier to not do
that and just add subtasks.

>
> Do the above statements look good? I'll wait for your confirmation,
> guys, so that I can be sure before I proceed.
>

generally looks good to me, though if i didn't respond to a particular
section, i haven't reviewed it as closely.

Jacob