On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 07:14:08PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: > [Sorry for being late, I'm a bit, um... Internet-challenged at the moment. > No PGP signature for the same reason.] > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 11:50:52AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:53:21PM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > > > Robert, I understand the reason for the include of the .c files, but > > > go ahead and just copy the code. We've tried both ways, over the > > > years, and it's better to clone the code, since the vendors have a > > > habit of changing things on mainboards, and code that includes other > > > code can cause trouble in both directions. > > I strongly disagree with this approach. Duplicated code is bad, bad, > bad and should be avoided whereever possible.
If we look at it in perspective, I think the cons for each option can be summarised as: - duplicate: someone might waste time debugging/implementing/fixing something that was already done at the other branch. - include: someone might break board A in a commit that was only tested on board B. AFAICS, the second is no big deal, it just takes a regression test which is something even I can do ;-) -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios