[coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Changes to the coreboot Project Structure We -- the coreboot project -- have succeeded beyond our wildest expectations, with every major laptop vendor using our code. Going forward, this will require a few structural changes that will ensure that the vendors shipping coreboot products can count on

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:55:57 PM Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Changes to the coreboot Project Structure > > Measures to improve the coreboot Development Model > > * Require authors to acknowledge changes made in their name (Forge-Author) > [...] Couldn't agree more. > * Define owners for (

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

ah, blush, somebody wants me to be dictator. However, I can't do it. First off, if you're not going to let me invade some country, it's no fun. Secondly, it's hard to find Dictator clothes that look good on me. Just won't work. Thirdly, Stefan has been doing this very well for at least 7 years, a

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Hi Stefan, streamlining development and maintenance is definitely absoutely worthwhile. Getting rid of unmaintained code is also a good thing. The guidelines presented in your mail look mostly good IMHO, but I'd like to comment on a few things. Am 20.03.2014 22:55 schrieb Stefan Reinauer: > * Sig

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 21.03.2014 01:39, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > streamlining development and maintenance is definitely absoutely > worthwhile. Getting rid of unmaintained code is also a good thing. The > guidelines presented in your mail look mostly good IMHO, but I'd like to > comment on a fe

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21.03.2014 01:39, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > > > streamlining development and maintenance is definitely absoutely > > worthwhile. Getting rid of unmaintained code is also a

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 03/20/2014 11:55 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote: Changes to the coreboot Project Structure .. * Significantly reduce number of submitters To ensure consistency, scalability and conformity with the general coreboot strategy, we need to define a clear committer structure that defines the

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Stefan Reinauer < stefan.reina...@coreboot.org> wrote: > * Build a MAINTAINERS file for common code, and encourage people to keep > subsystem maintainers in the loop for changes > Aiming for top notch code quality, the coreboot project is generally > trying t

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < c-d.hailfinger.devel.2...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > streamlining development and maintenance is definitely absoutely > worthwhile. Getting rid of unmaintained code is also a good thing. The > guidelines presented in your mail look mo

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:52 AM, David Hendricks wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < > c-d.hailfinger.devel.2...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Hi Stefan, >> >> streamlining development and maintenance is definitely absoutely >> worthwhile. Getting rid of unmaintained c

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:55:57PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Changes to the coreboot Project Structure > > We -- the coreboot project -- have succeeded beyond our wildest > expectations, with every major laptop vendor using our code. [...] > To ensure consistency, scalability and conformi

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > The proposition of gatekeepers would essentially kill community effort. That might not be a bad thing. Unfortunately, considering how the hardware industry works, individual contributors in the community can't work on code for current hardware. core

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 23.03.2014 04:10, Peter Stuge wrote: > That isn't too different from creating a fork? Fork is better. With fork we don't have to deal with the same people who pushed the community out in the first place. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 07:34:32 AM Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On 23.03.2014 04:10, Peter Stuge wrote: > > That isn't too different from creating a fork? > > Fork is better. With fork we don't have to deal with the same people who > pushed the community out in the first plac

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > > The proposition of gatekeepers would essentially kill community effort. > > That might not be a bad thing. > > Unfortunately, considering how the hardware industry works, individual > contributo

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:56:35 -0600 David Hubbard wrote: > Stefan appears to be missing in action. No, well, he has stated that he want to wait till everybody has calmed down (on IRC). It looks to me that he may have to wait indefinitely though, and I would also like to see some reaction from him

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

David Hubbard wrote: > > Unfortunately, considering how the hardware industry works, individual > > contributors in the community can't work on code for current hardware. > > Peter, you make good points. As a purely community contributor I'd be happy > to sign any necessary NDAs to contribute on G

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

David, When you go out of line with a private email, expect to find yourself on a public list. Alex On 03/23/2014 05:04 AM, David Hubbard wrote: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:26 AM, mrnuke > wrote: > > On Sunday, March 23, 2014 07:34:32 AM Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcod

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Hello! Please don't next time. Its considered to be rather rude, especially if the sender asked you to keep it off the list. I don't pretend to know what David H, was thinking, but I surmise he was indeed thinking of that. - Gregg C Levine gregg.drw...@gmail.com "This signature fought the Time

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On 23.03.2014 04:10, Peter Stuge wrote: >> That isn't too different from creating a fork? > Fork is better. With fork we don't have to deal with the same people who > pushed the community out in the first place. Vlad

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 05:37:37 PM Peter Stuge wrote: > David Hubbard wrote: > > But Peter, what's your take on Alex's suggestion: "What do we need to > > do to allow commercial contributors to work directly upstream? And > > before you discount this question for menial technical reasons, > > pl

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote: > So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers, but the > manner in which they are proposed to work. Can you tell me what about > this upsets you? I want to understand. The problem is that the proposal is that all commits go through gatekeepers. It

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote: > I have friends who commit to grub2, and there seem to be gatekeepers > there; how do you manage that process? In case of grub2 I admit we have exactly the problems I described. I'm open to having more maintainers but right now it doesn't seem to be feasible

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote: > > So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers, but the > > manner in which they are proposed to work. Can you tell me what about > > this upse

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Dear Stefan, dear coreboot folks, Am Donnerstag, den 20.03.2014, 22:55 +0100 schrieb Stefan Reinauer: > Changes to the coreboot Project Structure > > We -- the coreboot project -- have succeeded beyond our wildest > expectations, with every major laptop vendor using our code. Going > forward, th

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Hi folks, ok, sorry to those who thought that I was missing in action. It feels good to have a weekend to get out into the sun every now and then, and let the dust settle a little bit in a maybe too heated discussion. I will address your concerns. * mrnuke [140320 23:42]: > On Thursday, March 2

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Hi Carl-Daniel, thank you for your feedback! * Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [140321 01:39]: > I see a huge bottleneck in restricting the number of committers to six. > - Corporate committers will be primarily obliged to get the stuff of > their own employer committed, but if they are ill or on vacatio

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

* David Hubbard [140323 10:56]: > Coreboot can be relevant even if it only supports "obsolete" silicon. Coreboot > was the first to bring sub-second boot times to laptops. There are more > examples. Yes, we worked hard to get to that goal. If it were about obsolete hardware it would have never ha

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

* David Hubbard [140323 20:33]: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Vladimir ' -coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < > phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote: > > So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers, but the > > manner in which they are propose

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

* Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko [140321 04:31]: > The proposition of gatekeepers would essentially kill community effort. > Even in current infrastructure reviewing is a major slowdown. With small > number of gatekeepers there wouldn't be any significant contributions as > the gatekeepers

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 25.03.2014 02:33, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * David Hubbard [140323 20:33]: >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Vladimir ' -coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < >> phco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote: >> > So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see how this prevents any of my propositions for the bulk of the > boards. The problem you describe isn't going away with your proposition. > We still want to have a top which is suppose

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On 25.03.2014 06:34, ron minnich wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko > mailto:phco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > I don't see how this prevents any of my propositions for the bulk of the > boards. The problem you describe isn't going away

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's why I added *supposed to*. I'm aware that some boards are > probably broken and not much we can do about it. > > Except remove them, right? ron -- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreb

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

* ron minnich [140325 06:34]: > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir ' -coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < > phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see how this prevents any of my propositions for the bulk of the > boards. The problem you describe isn't going away with your prop

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 06:56:13 PM Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * ron minnich [140325 06:34]: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir ' -coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < > > > > phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see how this prevents any of my propositions for the bulk of > > the bo

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

* mrnuke [140325 19:13]: > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 06:56:13 PM Stefan Reinauer wrote: > > * ron minnich [140325 06:34]: > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir ' -coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < > > > > > > phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see how this prevents any of my propo

[coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure -- the non-aneurysmal way

Not so long ago, Stefan announced some pretty drastic changes to the project structure. While I believe he wanted to discuss the direction and find a mutually agreeable direction, his email still raised the aneurysm level to over nine thousand. So, how about we take the good ideas out of there

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure -- the non-aneurysmal way

Am Mittwoch, den 26.03.2014, 09:22 -0500 schrieb mrnuke: > Masters, of Gerrit, the pleasure of training gerrit to implement this change > is left entirely to you. While we're specifying behaviour: what should happen to changes that affect multiple maintainer domains? (and before you say they shou

Re: [coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure -- the non-aneurysmal way

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 03:32:12 PM Patrick Georgi wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 26.03.2014, 09:22 -0500 schrieb mrnuke: > > Masters, of Gerrit, the pleasure of training gerrit to implement this > > change is left entirely to you. > > While we're specifying behaviour: what should happen to change

[coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure -- one small step for bike sheds

Let's think of a few things which makes gerrit annoying: * -2 is a de-facto veto * -1 is not persistent on updates, encouraging -2 to be given The end result is that we're encouraging vetoing of patches. Proposal: * Submitability of a patch is based on overall review score ** Need at least a sco