2016-01-30 15:26 GMT+01:00 Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)users.sourceforge.net>:
But then, I wondered why I was not aware of that
section in the
development guidelines , and wanted to read up on it. While at it, I
also looked through the history, and there I see, that it was only
added  on the same day.
We had mentions of intel assembler syntax on the list
over the decades
(all 1.5 of them, proposed starting point for web based searches:
-gerrit intel syntax), and
it was always clear that coreboot uses AT&T syntax for x86.
The collective consciousness (with apologies to Durkheim) was pretty
The reason why this was added now is that people insisted that as long
as there's no written down hard rule about it, everything is fair
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of this model, but after the power
games surrounding this topic already took forever (may include traces
of hyperbole), it was the most economic decision to just nail it down.
4. If there is objection, and no agreement can be
proposal(s) should go up for a vote. The vote period should be at
least one week.
There exists no electorate (or to state it more
gets to vote?)
No idea, but I’d think it’d be only fair to revert the
this months, and discuss them first.
With all the time already wasted on the
assembly syntax issue (and no
chance for a different outcome), and everything else looking like
context-preserving clarifications (eg. GPL -> GPLv2) or harmless
updates (bug tracker) I don't see a need for that.
This also assumes both that your proposal takes effect, and is
The main problem here (if any) was the lack of notification after
changing the document. Given the limited impact (there were no other
instances of .intel_syntax out there, and folks generally knew to use
AT&T syntax), it probably wasn't considered a big deal.
Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle