On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stefan Reinauer stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org wrote:
That is a really surprising statement coming from you, Alex, as you and I have discussed this very topic in person several times
And as I have said in those very same discussions, decisions about coreboot shold be done publicly. You're also portraying a distorted picture of what was actually discussed, but it was still a private conversation and has no bearing towards what Paul pointed out.
Going back to Paul's proposal, he noted that an official project guideline had been modified with neither public mail discussion, nor community oversight. This was not a "minor typo fix" or "clarification". I count three different changes which were made this way. And I think Paul nailed it with his proposal.
I fully support Paul's proposal.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Martin Roth gaumless@gmail.com wrote:
There was significant discussion in several meetings about the reasons for and against standardizing on AT&T syntax.
As I've explained above, private conversations are not the proper forum to make decisions related to coreboot. I realize you and others involved are wearing two hats, and sometimes it's hard to tell which hat you're wearing, either for you, or observers. Please consider the image portrayed on your employer, when a group of its employees unilaterally discusses, changes, then enforces rules in a public project. I think Paul's proposal fixes this issue.
If you have a reason for using Intel syntax that is really more persuasive than keeping the asm code in the project consistent, feel free to state it.
While I have a lot to say of the matter, this is not the appropriate place. This discussion is about a change to a policy, not a development guideline. Let's focus on what Paul is saying here.
Alex