Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > Hi, > > while I agree fully with renaming the project, we need to consider the > point where we stop the renaming, also because some code referencing our > code is outside of our control. > We have LBTABLE structures and can rename them to CBTABLE. But will > Linux kernel folks merge patches renaming the structs? >
I can't think of any good reason not to. > Different question for LAR. It's short and it actually can be > pronounced. Do we really want to rename it to CBAR? Try to pronounce > that. > Eww, no argument with that. > Renaming it to CAR would be even worse because it would be > impossible to tell CorebootARchiver and CacheAsRam apart. > And we don't want to assume that we could tell the difference based on context: "How do I use CAR on <system x>?" I'm trying to come up with better ideas, but I haven't got much. Perhaps BAR (Boot ARchive), since it's actually made up of coreboot + some other boot payload + extension roms, etc, but that seems like it could introduce confusion with Base AddRess. > I didn't expect that the renaming business would be that much work with > so many pitfalls. > I don't think anyone really did. In hindsight, we probably should have just changed over v3 (since not many people should need old versions) and left the older versions alone. I wonder if it's possible to do a mass rename on the subversion server's archives, so subversion simply thinks it's always been coreboot. > Flames/comments welcome. I really feel lost in a maze of twisty little > passages. > > Regards, > Carl-Daniel > -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
