Re: [coreboot] A case for branching AGESA

[Timothy Pearson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/03/2015 03:41 AM, Vladimir wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this branching "solution". Why?
> Because - if building all the targets is slow - then just don't build
> all the targets at once! If you need a fast build and you are not
> concerned about AMD boards - just because you don't have any - it is
> always possible to skip AGESA build without moving it to a branch and
> separating from the rest of the coreboot code . So this is seen as a
> really bad excuse
>
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Shipovalov

I do agree technically with this, however there's no policy in place for
what happens when an AGESA build finally does fire and it's found the
related source broke some time ago.  I think that's the main reason for
wanting to stuff AGESA in a branch; separation of maintainaince.

One one hand, having recently been the victim of having some of my
native init patches fail Jenkins builds due to AGESA breakage, I'd
almost like to see this happen.  On the other hand, I know exactly how
painful sync across branches can be, so I can't recommend it.

- -- 
Timothy Pearson
Raptor Engineering
[phone] (direct line)
[phone] (switchboard)
http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWORHbAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbfbgH/i5wk3vQrqtlAuCY0Jhdx2ML
ez0ugczbnHaRiQZAuf62oQn1A2oPWg25LFssokztv9MyaJ1p1JbYkt1sLLJL5Eoi
hHwm3Lr61oM4NWkHYIy8s1TiK2nIAWnw2gepulNePe9vlul0CiMFlqMon8FMoYCC
6cONRC/09ElLElPRazp5JkoOJnqWTxWotKJqYUJwoxQ7ed2f0L6WB45KWFZSpz3W
PsO/WEX5TmsxiXLoV8q2W9NYizfNoDV/TIs89aKskcylxSCdj3DYWKYMudLAvglK
wpsfJWuy7WRw01Lp+Av6aPeF0rzU+pP/z9JhzewZWTBryjl9KJ2mQEI1MbjJwtE=
=3wXn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A case for branching AGESA

[Martin Roth]

Let's table the discussion of agesa (and other) platform removal for
now.  As Patrick said in the 4.2 release announcement, a plan for the
removal of code is being written and will be posted for discussion
shortly.

Martin

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Timothy Pearson
 wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/03/2015 03:41 AM, Vladimir wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with this branching "solution". Why?
> > Because - if building all the targets is slow - then just don't build
> > all the targets at once! If you need a fast build and you are not
> > concerned about AMD boards - just because you don't have any - it is
> > always possible to skip AGESA build without moving it to a branch and
> > separating from the rest of the coreboot code . So this is seen as a
> > really bad excuse
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Vladimir Shipovalov
>
> I do agree technically with this, however there's no policy in place for
> what happens when an AGESA build finally does fire and it's found the
> related source broke some time ago.  I think that's the main reason for
> wanting to stuff AGESA in a branch; separation of maintainaince.
>
> One one hand, having recently been the victim of having some of my
> native init patches fail Jenkins builds due to AGESA breakage, I'd
> almost like to see this happen.  On the other hand, I know exactly how
> painful sync across branches can be, so I can't recommend it.
>
> Timothy Pearson
> Raptor Engineering
> [phone] (direct line)
> [phone] (switchboard)
> http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWORHbAAoJEK+E3vEXDOFbfbgH/i5wk3vQrqtlAuCY0Jhdx2ML
> ez0ugczbnHaRiQZAuf62oQn1A2oPWg25LFssokztv9MyaJ1p1JbYkt1sLLJL5Eoi
> hHwm3Lr61oM4NWkHYIy8s1TiK2nIAWnw2gepulNePe9vlul0CiMFlqMon8FMoYCC
> 6cONRC/09ElLElPRazp5JkoOJnqWTxWotKJqYUJwoxQ7ed2f0L6WB45KWFZSpz3W
> PsO/WEX5TmsxiXLoV8q2W9NYizfNoDV/TIs89aKskcylxSCdj3DYWKYMudLAvglK
> wpsfJWuy7WRw01Lp+Av6aPeF0rzU+pP/z9JhzewZWTBryjl9KJ2mQEI1MbjJwtE=
> =3wXn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----