Add GOALS.md, revise contribution process, freshen up to use arewesafetycriticalyet.org #149
Conversation
❌ Deploy Preview for scrc-coding-guidelines failed.
|
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/coding-guidelines-goals
branch
from
99c4170 to
863169b
Compare
|
@PLeVasseur do you want me to take a look at this? :) |
|
That'd be very kind of you ;D |
…wesafetycriticalyet.org
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/coding-guidelines-goals
branch
from
59cb10c to
4f0f9fe
Compare
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/coding-guidelines-goals
branch
from
7f7e285 to
7c89bd9
Compare
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/coding-guidelines-goals
branch
2 times, most recently
from
46d94f8 to
494cbda
Compare
PLeVasseur
force-pushed
the
feature/coding-guidelines-goals
branch
from
494cbda to
ff367d1
Compare
PLeVasseur
changed the title
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
GOALS.md
Outdated
| * We include a rationale with links to parts of the Rust Project and wider Rust community for guidance | ||
| * We will include linkage where appropriate to to various standards, e.g. CERT C, MISRA C, DO 178, ISO 26262 | ||
| * We will include practical recommendations on how to use this piece of the language using compliant and non-compliant examples | ||
| * We will develop an addendum matrix to reduce burden of attaching these later |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here, do you mean that we will...
- Develop an addendum matrix to help reduce the burden of later attaching these guidelines?,
- or do you mean that we will... develop an addendum matrix later, to reduce the burden of attaching these guidelines?
I hope that makes sense. I read it and I'm not 100% sure which of those we mean.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here, do you mean that we will...
- Develop an addendum matrix to help reduce the burden of later attaching these guidelines?,
- or do you mean that we will... develop an addendum matrix later, to reduce the burden of attaching these guidelines?
I hope that makes sense. I read it and I'm not 100% sure which of those we mean.
The intent is for this to mean:
- Develop an addendum matrix to help reduce the burden of later attaching these guidelines to your safety-critical software development process
The idea being that by having such a matrix we
- make clear which safety standards we currently support
- and how
for any potential users.
Happy to take suggestions on rephrasing or I'll do so.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reworked this in bdfc48a
How does this look?
GOALS.md
Outdated
| * We will include linkage where appropriate to to various standards, e.g. CERT C, MISRA C, DO 178, ISO 26262 | ||
| * We will include practical recommendations on how to use this piece of the language using compliant and non-compliant examples | ||
| * We will develop an addendum matrix to reduce burden of attaching these later | ||
| * We will begin with DO 178 and ISO 26262 at perhaps chapter level, maybe subsection level _for now_ and expand later |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one also feels a bit ambiguous. Are we intending to...
- Begin with DO 178 and ISO 26262 for now and expand upon others later?, or
- are we intending to cover those two, beginning at either their chapter level or their subsection level, and if we begin at the latter, then we intend to expand towards the chapter level later?
I hope that makes sense as well. This one line feels a bit loose in the context of everything else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is intended to mean both bullet points. Perhaps it should be broken into two bullet points then, since it seems it may aid in understanding.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reworked this in bdfc48a
How does this look?
GOALS.md
Outdated
| * We aim to produce evidence-based guidelines, with statistics around human error when programming Rust, to support: | ||
| 1. What guidelines are written, and | ||
| 2. Why a specific suggestion was made | ||
| * We will produce the guidelines in an artifact that's easily machine readable and consistent format to make it easier to consume by tool vendors to some minimal viable artifact. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * We will produce the guidelines in an artifact that's easily machine readable and consistent format to make it easier to consume by tool vendors to some minimal viable artifact. | |
| * We will produce the guidelines in an artifact that's easily machine readable and of a consistent format, to make it easier to consume by tool vendors to some minimal viable artifact. |
This one is hard to parse. I assumed there's a missing "of a" and a missing comma in the middle.
But I'm still not 100% sure what we mean here.
- An artifact that's easily machine readable, got it, perfect.
- Of a consistent format, nice.
- (1) and (2) are there so that these are easier to consume by tool vendors. Awesome.
- ... but then we say "to some minimal viable artifact". Maybe it was "to some minimally viable artifact", but I'm still not sure what that means in the context of everything else.
Maybe this needs to be split into multiple sentences? Maybe multiple bullet points. Whatever we may need to express what we mean to say here, is good :3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll give some thought to point 4.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed in 01e2a2c
GOALS.md
Outdated
| # Explicit non-goals | ||
|
|
||
| * For the initial version to have complete coverage of the Rust programming language | ||
| * "Something" shipped to alleviate pressure at organizations is better than "nothing is available" even if we have to heavily subset the language |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if a link to what we mean by "subset the language" would help.
You and I know exactly what we mean by that, and people who have worked with MISRA probably understand the concept as well. But I wonder if other folks who work on Safety Critical know about it too?
Maybe there's a reference we can point to, that explains the concept?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps it is better to simply omit the point. It doesn't seem that important to mention the method for shipping something
| * "Something" shipped to alleviate pressure at organizations is better than "nothing is available" even if we have to heavily subset the language | |
| * "Something" shipped to alleviate pressure at organizations is better than "nothing is available" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll add another bullet point to clarify what I mean and why for subsetting the language. I do think it's important to make this obvious as it's an accepted means of allowing certain parts of the language and not others by IEC 61508 and ISO 26262 (and possibly others).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed in 25cae3b. Please give this a read-through and let me know.
|
Reminder to self to put somewhere that the current only way to retrigger the Netlify action is to submit an empty commit.
Should find an alternative way to trigger via GitHub if possible |
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Félix Fischer <[email protected]>
4 participants
Closes #145