[LinuxBIOS] lnxi-merge complete
yinghai.lu at amd.com
Wed Oct 26 19:57:43 CEST 2005
I don't think two trees are needed, that will create more work.
I mean every committer must not break the current code at least it can
compile through before the commit can be made. Just need he to spend 5
more minutes to double check it.
From: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:stepan at openbios.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:47 AM
To: Eric W. Biederman
Cc: Lu, Yinghai; Jason Schildt; linuxbios at openbios.org
Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] lnxi-merge complete
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederman at lnxi.com> [051026 19:35]:
> > Bad idea?
> Nope. I don't think so.
Richard's objection that a checkin will take a couple of minutes more is
true though. This might become annoying.
Sounds like we really might want a development tree and a stable tree
and have a 2 step process for merging into stable. But then again I see
it coming that noone will really use the stable tree as it is the least
> I think abuild.sh will need some improvements so it can build all of
> boards, and this won't replace code reviews.
Or fixing the build process might help. Image sizes are really
sensitive and get adjusted from time to time. This looks wrong to me.
The image size is something that I might want to decide when everything
built correctly and I compose the final image.
Then abuild might check and tell "minimum image size: 512k" or whatever
but not just fail.
As for the code reviews you are completely right. Code quality is
nothing that can be ensured by a bunch of automated tools.
But it can't be guaranteed by code reviews either, since even by careful
looking I can't guess if a certain piece of code will actually compile
unless it is reaaally nasty stuff.
We all agree that the LNXI merge is a good thing, but it is causing us
a little headache now and then. Nothing to worry, nor to argue about -
but still something that needs a little fixup.
Do you have a time frame for getting things into shape, or shall anyone
else try to fix up their own builds? (I'd prefer the first ;))
More information about the coreboot