On 21.07.2008 16:25, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:49:04PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Completely forking the codebase into separate projects is something I'd like to avoid because we already have too few development resources.
Full ack.
Suggestion: After 1.0, we create
- a development branch where people can go wild with rewriting stuff
- a stable branch with incremental changes where breakage is not allowed.
Nah, overkill and not really useful IMO.
Hm. There have been quite a few disagreements over design and code questions in the recent past. Branching would allow people who share a common vision to showcase what they intend to do without being limited to single patches.
I personally believe more in the incremental approach with minimal changes.
Ack. No patch should ever break the build or runtime-behaviour of flashrom. That doesn't mean we can't do radical changes, such changes just have to be done in a manner which doesn't break flashrom, either in small incremental steps or in bigger patch-series which do all changes at once. But we don't need (or want, IMO) branches for either...
There are philosophical differences as well. Peter and Stefan want to remove #defines and use magic values directly. I heavily disagree with that and believe the code is more readable if the meaning of a constant is visible in the code without having to consult data sheets. I hope that branching is a way to avoid revert wars or NACKs for design reasons.
Regards, Carl-Daniel