[coreboot] [PATCH] We're not just version 2 anymore
stepan at coresystems.de
Fri Oct 30 17:46:13 CET 2009
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Software development usually tries to improve the codebase (if we ignore
> developmestruction environments). This move is guaranteed to make the
> codebase worse, and even after fixups the end result will still be worse
> than what we had before.
Sorry, I completely don't understand your reasoning here.
> Sorry, if you call this a "bug fix", then renaming util/ would be the
> next obvious bug fix because lots of stuff in util/ is not a utility.
> And src/mainboard/ and targets/ would have to be merged as well (they
> are both mainboard stuff).
I'll listen and smile, sorry, can't say more.
In fact, we won't be needing targets in a bit anymore, so it will be
> If you expect core developers to answer the question "why is the tree
> called v2" more than 720 times, the move is a net benefit. If you expect
> to answer less often, the move is a net loss. If any non-committer
> developers (or even users) answer the questions, the move is even worse.
You suspiciously sound like those microsoft consultants in the 90ies...
"Windows may not be nice, but it's not bad enough that we would accept
extra effort to improve and learn Linux".
I expect those 720 minutes to be well spent, and frankly, I spent more
than 720 minutes extra due to the brokenness of the coreboot tree in the
last 2 years.
>> - if we go down path 2, we will finally have all utilities together
>> again. (Something I want to see anyways), so branching and merging will
>> become substantially easier.
> With that move (which is a revert), we admit that the original move was
> a bad idea.
Yes, that idea was really awful. But some of us did not know better, and
others did not care enough to prevent it from happening.
Now we care. Now we know.
> What are we going to say about the current move proposal a year from
> now? "Bad idea, let's revert the revert?"
> And it will increase checkout size by ~20%.
Ok, with that reasoning we should really just stop developing.
> I don't buy the branching/merging argument. So far I've seen exactly
> zero branches for anything in v2/util or util/.
Well obviously not everything that happens happens under your
supervision or on the mailing list.
>>> I'm intrigued, though. How exactly should things move around even more?
>>> Please enlighten me.
>> Same like flashrom, basically. Same as most other projects, really.
> Totally different from flashrom.
Not at all. We just didn't do the same mistakes we did with coreboot in
the beginning. It's only those mistakes that will be cleaned up by this
> flashrom doesn't carry around
> flash-and-burn, nor does it carry around any of the mtd tools.
Yes, we did not import all of the history but that's barely a benefit.
> AFAIK v1 is a totally different codebase,
We can easily move it to a separate repository if there is a good reason
> so branches/ is the wrong place. And
> I've not seen anybody suggest to merge v3 into the v2 repo under branches/.
Yes, I suggested that before. But v3 is dead, even more so than v1, so
we shouldn't care. Plus v3 always was in a separate repository.
All the best,
More information about the coreboot