Michael Niewöhner wrote: > > But once code is moved off master reuse of changes on master will > > eventually become impossible and there's no good path to recover from > > that situation, so it should be important to avoid such dead ends for > > any code we want to stay usable - IMO all code. > > How would you "reuse [] changes on master" on a platform, where these > changes can't be tested? o.O
By reuse I don't mean that code runs, I mean that a commit benefits also platforms without test coverage. There are many ways to determine whether a commit benefits a platform or not, testing is just one way and testing alone is a weak indicator. That's perhaps foreign to someone with a "test-driven" mindset. I don't hate on testing at all, I just want to preserve value also where there's no coverage when that's possible without much detriment to other parts of the code. I don't think it's reasonable nor is it current practice to require every commit to be tested on every affected platform. That would obviously be nice data points to have but that has not been coreboot reality in the past 20 years and I predict that it will also not be so in the next 20 years. I think that's fine. I hope you can understand that my ask is simply to not erase what might be working well based only on a lack of information. I'm obviously grateful that the leadership meeting settled on keeping quark at least as long as it causes no problems. Thanks for that! Kind regards //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
