[coreboot] It's not just v2 anymore
edwin_beasant at virtensys.com
Mon Feb 8 20:45:42 CET 2010
This would be most appreciated. Its difficult to explain to non-techs
(read manager) that v2 doesn't really mean v2, and that they can't
draw any comparisons with images built from a 18 month old codebase
from the *same place* ;-)
(classic "it has the same name, therefore it is the same" problem!)
Thanks for pushing this along, if there's anything I can do,
On 8 Feb 2010, at 18:35, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> On 2/1/10 6:58 PM, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 06:05:38PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
>>> Am 30.01.2010 15:38, schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
>>>> See patch :-)
>>> Acked-by: Patrick Georgi <patrick.georgi at coresystems.de>
>> Maybe not call it 4.0alpha1 but only 4.0. Just as with previous
>> numbers it will not change anytime soon and having alpha in the name
>> doesn't sound too encouraging.
> Ok, done it this way.
>> Also: Should we change all v2 strings in code and wiki to read v4
>> afterwards? Especially the supported boards table should probably say
>> "v4" I think, to avoid further confusion of why v3 is a higher
>> number but everybody works on v2.
> I think we should just remove the version number from as many pages as
> possible... Updates to the wiki should rather reflect CBFS and Kconfig
> for all the build tutorials. They are quite out of date since a few
> revisions (many even still suggest to cat vgabios.bin coreboot.rom >
> coreboot-with-vga.rom, which doesn't work since quite a while)...
> Do you have a good hint for a build tutorial that works as a base
> for a
> unified build tutorial? Or could you possibly work on such a tutorial?
> With Kconfig being available everywhere, we should make sure people
> recognize how simple it became to build coreboot
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
More information about the coreboot