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

Corey Osgood corey.osgood at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 21:26:20 CEST 2009

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> 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
> serious.
> > 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.

If the formatting of the file is so damn important, why not duplicate the
file, having one version with the multiline format and a second with the
dual-line one? Then a post-commit script keeps the two in sync with each
other. Normally, I'm against duplicated code, but this argument got old
months ago, I'll ack any patch that ends it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20090421/8f3e497a/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list