On 07/29/2014 09:20 PM, David Hendricks wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Isaac isaac.christensen@se-eng.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am currently working on helping the Chromium team get their coreboot patches upstreamed so I thought I should introduce myself to the community. My name is Isaac Christensen and I've been working for Sage Electronic Engineering since October. These will be my first pushes up to coreboot.org so if you have any comments on process or workflow feel free to let me know as I'm still learning.
Great! We'll look forward to working with you on this.
It might be beneficial to drop by #coreboot on irc.freenode.net to answer questions / feedback about patches in real-time.
Excellent. A couple questions though:
Do you plan to upstream all Chromebook coreboot and libpayload branches from Chromium git, or just the individual patches Sage finds useful and necessary for the boards You currently work on?
Do we expect the original authors to review the rebased, possibly modified work, or is the plan these patches just get rubberstamped as +2 by a 3rd party once they build cleanly?
I see some of you first patches had a couple commits from Chromium tree squashed into one. Why was the approach changed from how eg. Aaron and Stefan handled the process? This has the unpleasant effect that commit ownership (and eg. git blame) will no longer reflect the actual author of change and also git log --oneline no longer serves as a datapoint in attempt to compare which changes from Chromium branches have been upstreamed or not.
Did you develop some nice method to keep track of which branches from Chromium we can consider as completely upstreamed?
Do you have the facilities to do regular board-status script runs for recent Chromebooks?
Kyösti
Let me join in welcoming Isaac's efforts! Good to have you with the project, Isaac.
Kyösti Mälkki wrote:
Excellent. A couple questions though:
..
Thank you for asking these questions. I'm looking forward to good answers!
This is important.
//Peter
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Kyösti Mälkki kyosti.malkki@gmail.com wrote:
I see some of you first patches had a couple commits from Chromium tree squashed into one. Why was the approach changed from how eg. Aaron and Stefan handled the process?
For the ARM platforms, there were a lot of files that were imported from other projects and were unnecessary and/or inconsistent with coreboot style. I suspect that squashing many of those commits helps to make it build cleanly against upstream without polluting the codebase with a lot of obsolete/unwanted stuff that got cleaned out anyway.
git log --oneline no longer serves as a datapoint in attempt to compare which changes from Chromium branches have been upstreamed or not.
Perhaps, and hopefully the x86 stuff won't need as much squashing since there should be less churn in that part of the codebase.
IMHO the most important reason to do this at all is to provide a good starting point to people who are interested in developing future products, not necessarily to bring in 100% of the patches from chromium for past products. Even if we miss a few patches or some history is lost -- and I obviously hope we don't lose anything important -- that's a small price to pay to make "upstream first" development easier for new products.
Did you develop some nice method to keep track of which branches from Chromium we can consider as completely upstreamed?
Do you have the facilities to do regular board-status script runs for recent Chromebooks?
Kyösti
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
* Kyösti Mälkki kyosti.malkki@gmail.com [140731 21:00]:
Do you plan to upstream all Chromebook coreboot and libpayload branches from Chromium git, or just the individual patches Sage finds useful and necessary for the boards You currently work on?
No, the plan for now is to only upstream the Chromium HEAD, since all Chrome OS product branches are derived from that. In theory all changes made to product branches should all go into Chromium HEAD as well. While this is not always true, the product branches are now all open on chromium.org.
Do we expect the original authors to review the rebased, possibly modified work, or is the plan these patches just get rubberstamped as +2 by a 3rd party once they build cleanly?
Of course we value the feedback of the original authors.
I see some of you first patches had a couple commits from Chromium tree squashed into one. Why was the approach changed from how eg. Aaron and Stefan handled the process?
It was changed due to community feedback.
This has the unpleasant effect that commit ownership (and eg. git blame) will no longer reflect the actual author of change and also git log --oneline no longer serves as a datapoint in attempt to compare which changes from Chromium branches have been upstreamed or not.
The idea is that we will switch to a new upstream coreboot version ASAP and get into a continuous upstreaming process where we don't accumulate such a large number of patches anymore but upstream at least every few weeks so we can stay closer to upstream coreboot in the future.
Did you develop some nice method to keep track of which branches from Chromium we can consider as completely upstreamed?
The method will be
product firmware branches ==> Chrome OS HEAD ==> coreboot upstream
Do you have the facilities to do regular board-status script runs for recent Chromebooks?
Not at this time, but we are constantly working on improving our testing infrastructure to allow more flexible and broader testing. I hope at some point we can add that. However, if you rely on stability, you definitely want to run coreboot off the product firmware branches.
Stefan
Hello! Stefan, by what you posted there, (and correct me if I'm wrong) if I were to put together a system who would be running ChromeOS and of course using coreboot to bring it up, the OS would be constructed from the head of the entire Chromium set?
Just checking. As of this moment I do not have these plans, but its always an interest to do so. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Stefan Reinauer stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org wrote:
- Kyösti Mälkki kyosti.malkki@gmail.com [140731 21:00]:
Do you plan to upstream all Chromebook coreboot and libpayload branches from Chromium git, or just the individual patches Sage finds useful and necessary for the boards You currently work on?
No, the plan for now is to only upstream the Chromium HEAD, since all Chrome OS product branches are derived from that. In theory all changes made to product branches should all go into Chromium HEAD as well. While this is not always true, the product branches are now all open on chromium.org.
Do we expect the original authors to review the rebased, possibly modified work, or is the plan these patches just get rubberstamped as +2 by a 3rd party once they build cleanly?
Of course we value the feedback of the original authors.
I see some of you first patches had a couple commits from Chromium tree squashed into one. Why was the approach changed from how eg. Aaron and Stefan handled the process?
It was changed due to community feedback.
This has the unpleasant effect that commit ownership (and eg. git blame) will no longer reflect the actual author of change and also git log --oneline no longer serves as a datapoint in attempt to compare which changes from Chromium branches have been upstreamed or not.
The idea is that we will switch to a new upstream coreboot version ASAP and get into a continuous upstreaming process where we don't accumulate such a large number of patches anymore but upstream at least every few weeks so we can stay closer to upstream coreboot in the future.
Did you develop some nice method to keep track of which branches from Chromium we can consider as completely upstreamed?
The method will be
product firmware branches ==> Chrome OS HEAD ==> coreboot upstream
Do you have the facilities to do regular board-status script runs for recent Chromebooks?
Not at this time, but we are constantly working on improving our testing infrastructure to allow more flexible and broader testing. I hope at some point we can add that. However, if you rely on stability, you definitely want to run coreboot off the product firmware branches.
Stefan
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
-
David Hendricks -
Gregg Levine -
Kyösti Mälkki -
Peter Stuge -
Stefan Reinauer