Nico Huber:
On 29.11.21 14:49, awokd wrote:
Branching
---------
I know some people are easily offended by the thought, but I want to
mention it anyway as it seems to me like a cheap solution for the com-
munity as a whole. We could maintain platforms on separate branches.
Is this different than the status quo?
Yes, these ports wouldn't hold the master branch back anymore.
Meant the status quo approach of deprecating boards and leaving to an
older branch. I think you are saying it would be a named branch instead.
I think the concern here is once
platforms are dropped from master, people rarely take the time to
consider or backport any improvements to the out of sight, out of mind
old branches. On the other hand, concerns about trying to maintain code
with mounds of technical debt are entirely valid.
They are out of sight either way, IMHO. The original deprecation notice
is over a year old, why would anyone still put any effort into it? I
assume if there was a dedicated place for these ports, people might
even be encouraged to work on it because they don't have to fear that
the ports are completely abandoned soon.
I guess it depends most on the maintainers of such a branch. If they'd
let it rot, things won't get better of course.
This might not be a bad compromise.
Porting
-------
Given that we are talking about platforms that are not based on native
coreboot code but unmaintained vendor code instead, it might help to
port these platforms to coreboot proper.
You mention the KGPE-D16 as an example. I hadn't followed at the time,
but from what I can tell it was a well-written, coreboot native port.
AFAIR, it's the exact opposite.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I'm poking at an old wound for
anybody.
_______________________________________________
coreboot mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
