[coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom - board enable - reconstruct table.

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Mon Apr 20 16:18:52 CEST 2009

On 20.04.2009 15:43, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:16:13PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:  
>> Should I now revert the table part of the patch because I nak it and the
>> original conversion to multiline had more acks than the conversion back
>> to single-line?
>> Sorry, but this is just silly.
> Last time round, you committed despite of a lot of complaints. For all 
> intents and purpose those complaints were nacks.

Lots of complaints from you and Peter.

> Yet you overruled them rather badly with this statement:
> http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2009-January/044125.html

My bad. I should have listed the 3 other flashrom developers who agree
with me. So you're outnumbered.

> Now, from a million miles away, this situation is just as bad as last 
> time, it is just that roles are reversed for you this time. I'm sure 
> you've heard this saying before, don't do onto others what you do not 
> want to have done to you.
> What should have been the case here all along is that this should've 
> been based on solid arguments instead of on egos.

Each of us claims to have solid arguments. I think that's abvious by now.

> Some arguments came from Ron, as to why he acked this, but they were 
> clearly outnumbered by arguments for not taking in the patch.

If the number of arguments in favour of anything counts, I'll split each
of my arguments into dozens of micro-arguments and I win. You can't be

> Also, Ron 
> his arguments were rather general and not specific for this rather 
> special case of a really nasty table that will become huge over time.

So you're saying his argument does not apply although it was made in
response to the discussion about this exact table? I'd like to
understand that reasoning.

> What you also have to take into account is that this time the signed off 
> and the ack come from two people who have been heavily involved with the 
> board enables, and who have worked with this table extensively. Last 
> time those people came with Nacks, yet you still overruled them 
> hardhandedly.

I understood the previous discussion to be a vote and you lost. It seems
our voting eligibility criteria differ.

> Please, read the arguments and try to understand them. There are valid 
> reasons for this table to be like this, and they outweigh and outnumber 
> the few that the other layout had in favour. And don't let this degrade 
> as much as last time.

To recap:
1. If number of flashrom developers counts, I win. (I can dig up the
relevant mailing list posts if you insist.)
2. If the number of arguments counts, I can split my arguments into
dozens of micro-arguments. You can probably do the same. After some
time, one of us will grow tired of this.
3. If the number of developers touching the table counts, you claim you
win (I haven't verified that).

It all burns down on deciding which arguments are valid and who is
eligible to vote/decide if there are valid opposing arguments.



More information about the coreboot mailing list