This would be most appreciated. Its difficult to explain to non-techs (read manager) that v2 doesn't really mean v2, and that they can't draw any comparisons with images built from a 18 month old codebase from the *same place* ;-) (classic "it has the same name, therefore it is the same" problem!) Thanks for pushing this along, if there's anything I can do, Cheers. Edwin
On 8 Feb 2010, at 18:35, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
On 2/1/10 6:58 PM, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 06:05:38PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
Am 30.01.2010 15:38, schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
See patch :-)
Acked-by: Patrick Georgi patrick.georgi@coresystems.de
r5096
Maybe not call it 4.0alpha1 but only 4.0. Just as with previous version numbers it will not change anytime soon and having alpha in the name doesn't sound too encouraging.
Ok, done it this way.
Also: Should we change all v2 strings in code and wiki to read v4 afterwards? Especially the supported boards table should probably say "v4" I think, to avoid further confusion of why v3 is a higher version number but everybody works on v2.
I think we should just remove the version number from as many pages as possible... Updates to the wiki should rather reflect CBFS and Kconfig for all the build tutorials. They are quite out of date since a few revisions (many even still suggest to cat vgabios.bin coreboot.rom > coreboot-with-vga.rom, which doesn't work since quite a while)... Do you have a good hint for a build tutorial that works as a base for a unified build tutorial? Or could you possibly work on such a tutorial? With Kconfig being available everywhere, we should make sure people recognize how simple it became to build coreboot
Stefan
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot