On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:19 AM Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
On 21.06.23 04:58, David Hendricks wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:41 PM Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
And, yes, no question, this is an activity that likely occurs less than it should. Such is our industry.
Such is project policy. Maybe because it's the lowest common denominator in industry.
The project's policy is to remove code that becomes difficult to maintain, whether due to bitrot or technical barriers to refactoring.
I don't see this "becomes difficult to maintain" much. Much of what we removed in the last years had either an unfortunate design (cf. FSP 1.0) and or was already merged in a difficult to maintain state (cf. AGESA). IMO, this is where we should consider to learn from, not just make it policy and go on.
I'd also add that we shouldn't stonewall new contributors because of problems outside of their scope, going along with what Martin wrote earlier.
A bit OT, and sorry, if this is an odd question: Wasn't this the point of OCP, that they can talk to each other? If it's possible, we could try to talk earlier about the code, before it's written and pushed upstream later.
It's more about setting some general parameters to ensure the code can be downloaded, modified, and redistributed. That alone is a huge hill to climb in our industry. Perfection will be the next battle once we've removed hurdles to initial development.
That said, there are some collaborative efforts with silicon vendors using their reference platforms, for example Intel's Archer City and AMD's Onyx, however OEM products are not usually developed this way. To be clear, participation in open source projects does *NOT* require companies to share upcoming product details with potential competitors. I've heard FUD from certain parties claiming otherwise.