Thanks for the detailed write-up. I suppose there's another part coming so I don't want to get too deep into discussion just yet, but one part in particular caught my eye:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> wrote: > While there was a bunch of patches that have been piled up back then it > was less of a problem then the increasing divergence between the > chromiumos fork and upstream. Thus we have discussed ways to converge > that (by pulling changes mainly from upstream into chromium but also > vice versa) and also increase the pace of merging stuff into upstream > later. This was still with no intention to switch to git because of > Carl-Daniel's concerns. > I'm surprised that you think that chromiumos's divergence is a *worse* problem than the huge backlog of upstream patches. The chromiumos fork is self-contained, has its own review system, its own testing, and is targeted at a narrow set of devices. I don't understand how it could have been a problem for upstream and would be interested if you can elaborate on this point. FWIW I did try pushing some features from chromiumos to upstream, but like other patches they never really got anywhere. I also tried working with Carl-Daniel for a couple months to sync the trees, but that effort didn't get very far.
_______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
