On 22.11.2014 17:28, John Lewis wrote: > > > On 22/11/14 15:55, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> On 22.11.2014 12:22, John Lewis wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 21/11/14 21:58, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >>>> On 14.11.2014 12:44, John Lewis wrote: >>>>> Hey y'all, >>>>> >>>>> I've modified the board-status script to have as few external >>>>> dependencies as possible, be a self-extracting, self-running "binary". >>>>> and removed the time-stamp to keep the number initial commits down. >>>>> Feel >>>>> free to tell me how bad it is and how it murdered your children. :P >>>>> >>>> Never send binaries to the list. >>> >>> A link could be just as malicious. What way should I do it? >>> >> A link would be fine. It wouldn't make everybody uninterested in this >> topic but subscribed to the list download 1M file. > > I understand what you mean now - people perhaps stuck on low-bandwidth > links with expensive data plans. > >>>> And about the idea: current code needs git tree. I tried to make >>>> changes >>>> to make it possible to have board-status without git tree. >>>> >>>> Result: those change were ignored, bikeshed or vetoed. >>>> >>>> Long story short: nobody cares. >>> >>> At some point Ron did care, otherwise we wouldn't have been talking >>> about it, and I certainly do. I can tell you anecdotally which >>> Chromebooks are being used and should remain live in the code-base >>> (hint: all of them) but I thought we were trying to be more scientific >>> about it than that. >>> >> Speaking is about where it usually stops. It's been very disappointing. >> Usual scenario is that we get lots of discussion to do sth, everybody is >> dissatisfied with current status and when I spend huge chunk of my >> personal time to fix it, nobody is there to even review the patches. >> That's understandable: otherwise what will we speak about next time if >> the issue is solved? Still it's disappointing and I have better things >> to do with my personal time than making patches nobody cares about. >> The top of rename stack is at 7185. It's automated test and Stefan >> agreed to it in principle in Prague, yet it's sitting there for already >> 3 weeks. > > Okay, well the binary as is will upload stuff to the current > board-status repo, so maybe that's enough. I'm trying to encourage > people to use it. We'll see if we can get maybe a few hundred people to > upload something, given time. > Determining of mainboard is wrong for clones. I was trying to fix this a while ago but I stopped carying. >>>>> John. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot