On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Felipe Sanches <j...@members.fsf.org> wrote: > Is there an index of which was the latest git commit for each removed board > ? > That would help anyone interested in working on them in the future. It is > not strictly necessary, but would certainly make life easier. And it can't > be that hard to update a wiki page (or something equivalent) any time > there's a new board deprecation.
Keep in mind that branches exist for each release which inherently has the full history at time of release: $ git ls-remote upstream refs/heads/* 6cb3a59fd5e754c3627b79db21c5bcc284bfd721 refs/heads/4.1 ad342a4589df6c51c96c1e9110979964b244fec3 refs/heads/4.2 1bf5e6409678d04fd15f9625460078853118521c refs/heads/4.3 588ccaa9a7d94da4f5a5b3579eb9e3d06c9f4a51 refs/heads/4.4 c21e07385f9b4048d6ddb67989b23999f566951d refs/heads/classic-2014.10 e9418b454f6d2734360ca4e3c017f59904490d9f refs/heads/coreboot-v1 25d77ad675f8bac8fd7e038801c72797ea8dc7d6 refs/heads/coreboot-v3 4fcce9da0a1b62b46ed78c522f6fcbf51ff5974e refs/heads/foo2 f5fe3590af9a67f9fd3adaee85168d3cac0d84d0 refs/heads/master > > 2017-08-23 16:53 GMT-03:00 Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de>: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 23.08.2017 06:00, taii...@gmx.com wrote: >> > Just because a board lacks active developers doesn't mean that no one is >> > using it. >> >> right, and we won't stop anybody from using them in the future. Please >> keep in mind, when a board is removed from the tree that only means that >> the people working on newer boards don't maintain the old ones any more. >> You can still check out the parent of the removal commit and build these >> boards. I don't know which boards exactly are in question, but older >> board ports are often broken anyway. So you can't argue that keeping >> them in the tree would magically make them work. >> >> > As a layman I simply can't understand as to how all these seemingly >> > insignificant improvements such as CBMEM in ramstage make it worth >> > removing almost every compatible board from the source, >> >> I agree that these improvements would be insignificant to the boards in >> question. Though, making improvements at all for newer platforms is much >> harder if you have to take care of the old platforms (with incompatible >> code) too. >> >> > including nearly >> > all the models that still have an open source init. >> >> Can I see numbers please? I count about 50 Intel based boards (not >> counting variants) with free init code which is actively developed. >> There are more on the ARM front and probably some AMD based too. They'll >> all stay. How many are we going to remove? >> >> > To me it seems at the rate this is going soon all that will be left is a >> > few blobbed and NDA'ed development boards unavailable to the general >> > public. >> >> What rate? how many have we removed already? 2? If you estimate from >> that and the prospect that we'll remove 50+ one year later, well, then >> we'd remove 1,000+ boards next year. That would indeed be a problem... >> >> > >> > Am I mistaken? >> >> Yes, I guess. >> >> Nico >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org >> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot