Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi,
while I agree fully with renaming the project, we need to consider the point where we stop the renaming, also because some code referencing our code is outside of our control. We have LBTABLE structures and can rename them to CBTABLE. But will Linux kernel folks merge patches renaming the structs?
I can't think of any good reason not to.
Different question for LAR. It's short and it actually can be pronounced. Do we really want to rename it to CBAR? Try to pronounce that.
Eww, no argument with that.
Renaming it to CAR would be even worse because it would be impossible to tell CorebootARchiver and CacheAsRam apart.
And we don't want to assume that we could tell the difference based on context: "How do I use CAR on <system x>?" I'm trying to come up with better ideas, but I haven't got much. Perhaps BAR (Boot ARchive), since it's actually made up of coreboot + some other boot payload + extension roms, etc, but that seems like it could introduce confusion with Base AddRess.
I didn't expect that the renaming business would be that much work with so many pitfalls.
I don't think anyone really did. In hindsight, we probably should have just changed over v3 (since not many people should need old versions) and left the older versions alone. I wonder if it's possible to do a mass rename on the subversion server's archives, so subversion simply thinks it's always been coreboot.
Flames/comments welcome. I really feel lost in a maze of twisty little passages.
Regards, Carl-Daniel