[LinuxBIOS] issue 20, island aruma update
Ronald G Minnich
rminnich at lanl.gov
Wed Nov 23 21:43:08 CET 2005
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Richard Smith <smithbone at gmail.com> [051123 21:26]:
>>>when we have the tree in it's old well-known marvelous state again we
>>>should require that every patch that goes into the tree from the tracker
>>>is proven to break nothing by attaching an abuild of the whole tree
>>>before and after the patch. This is 10min work for that one developer
>>>per patch, but safes weeks for all of us.
>>What do you plan to do for archs that need a cross compiler?
> Hm. We could put out a close description of how to build cross compilers
> for the suite or allow developers to submit their patches and get the
> results to it from the linuxbios.org machine.
The thing is, it's just not possible to be casual about patches any
more, as we were in the past. We've had the megapatch mess on our hands
for almost 2 months, the tree is still a mess, and it's very hard to dig
out. A BIOS is a much more sensitive piece of software than an operating
system. You screw up the BIOS, you've got a lot of dead hardware on your
hands and there is no way out. I think placing some sort of burden of
proof on committers is a good idea. We've got to get this under control.
More information about the coreboot