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

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:16:13PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 20.04.2009 14:45, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >   
> >> This patch restores the pciid based board matching table. It makes this
> >> table readable and hackable again, and the only disadvantage is that the
> >> right margin is way beyond the rather dogmatic 80. All 0x0000 pci ids have
> >> been string replaced by 0 to more easily spot missing ids, and extra
> >> comments have been added to explain how the various entries are used.
> >>
> >> Signed-Off-By: Luc Verhaegen <libv at skynet.be>
> >>     
> >
> > Thanks! r4142.
> >
> >
> > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >   
> >> The documentation part can be committed after one more iteration.
> >>     
> >
> > I took the liberty of improving the wording a little.
> >   
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> >> The rest of the patch makes board entries unreadable.
> >>     
> >
> > I disagree very much, and I welcome this patch because I naked the
> > original change.
> >   
> 
> 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Luc Verhaegen.