Chromium Upstreaming / Introduction

[Isaac]

      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.

Thank you,
Isaac

[David Hendricks]

      On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Isaac <isaac.christensen(a)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.

-- 
David Hendricks (dhendrix)
Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

[Paul Menzel]

      Dear Isaac,


Am Dienstag, den 29.07.2014, 10:55 -0600 schrieb Isaac:

  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.
welcome to coreboot and thank you very much for getting in contact with
the coreboot community!

  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.
As already commented on your change sets, I’d prefer if you could avoid
squashing commits. Kyösti made very good points, so I won’t repeat them.

Also it’d be great to at least address such review comments and not
ignore them and push the patches.

I am looking forward to the time when the future Chromium OS branches
can be rebased on the coreboot upstream master branches. ;-)


Thanks,

Paul

[Stefan Reinauer]

      * Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)users.sourceforge.net> [140802 15:07]:
  As already commented on your change sets, I’d prefer
if you could avoid
 squashing commits. Kyösti made very good points, so I won’t repeat them.
 
One of the reasons Isaac has been squashing patches was that some in the
community have been complaining about a vast amount of unsquashed
patches last time, e.g.:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg40272.html
http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2013-January/073543.html

As always, we have taken the community input under consideration, and
tried acting upon it in the best possible way.

Are you suggesting that the needs have changed here?

Stefan

[Patrick Georgi]

Am 05.08.2014 um 20:36 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
  Are you suggesting that the needs have changed here?
My only concern here would be to keep rebase/merge et al more functional, but
it's probably already too late for that in the current state.

I suppose, once the trees are somewhat synchronized, one could build a merge commit
between both histories to create a new baseline - and redo that every now and then.


Patrick

[Stefan Reinauer]

      * Patrick Georgi <patrick(a)georgi-clan.de> [140805 21:32]:
  
 
 Am 05.08.2014 um 20:36 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
  Are you suggesting that the needs have changed
here?
 My only concern here would be to keep rebase/merge et al more
 functional, but it's probably already too late for that in the current
 state.
Unfortunately, without significant amounts of testing, there is no
guarantee that any given configuration in the Chromium HEAD or coreboot
upstream HEAD will actually work on a given hardware. for every single
build. If you want something that is tested for a given product, you
will have to use a product firmware branch.

If you want to make changes to a given configuration, you will have to
have equipment and knowledge in place to test and fix up your
configuration yourself. That's certainly not something you'd get for
free in any open source project, and particularly not in a hardware
related project.
 
  I suppose, once the trees are somewhat synchronized,
one could build a
 merge commit between both histories to create a new baseline - and
 redo that every now and then.
The idea is indeed that the pain will go away if synchronization happens
more regularly in both directions.

Stefan

[Paul Menzel]

      Dear Stefan,


Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 20:36 +0200 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
  * Paul Menzel [140802 15:07]:
  As already commented on your change sets, I’d
prefer if you could avoid
 squashing commits. Kyösti made very good points, so I won’t repeat them.
  
 One of the reasons Isaac has been squashing patches was that some in the
 community have been complaining about a vast amount of unsquashed
 patches last time, e.g.:
 
 https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg40272.html
very interesting read. ;-)

First of, I am sorry, that it looks like one time I write this and the
other time that. But it is more my fault for not being clear. So let me
clarify. By fix-ups I meant typos or wrong PCI IDs. Looking at the
squashed commits in [1], from my point of view, these are no fix-ups and
should not have been squashed.

 
http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2013-January/073543.html
Well, that message actually asks for more communication with the
community, so is unrelated.

  As always, we have taken the community input under
consideration, and
 tried acting upon it in the best possible way.
Yes, thanks again for your answer.

  Are you suggesting that the needs have changed here?
The basic need has not changed and it looks like it was a
misunderstanding in the past.


Thanks,

Paul


[1] http://review.coreboot.org/6425

Squashing of commits during Chromium upstreaming (was: Chromium Upstreaming / Introduction)

[Paul Menzel]

      Dear coreboot folks,


Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 22:59 +0200 schrieb Paul Menzel:

  Am Dienstag, den 05.08.2014, 20:36 +0200 schrieb
Stefan Reinauer:
 > * Paul Menzel [140802 15:07]:
[…]

  Are you
suggesting that the needs have changed here?
 
 The basic need has not changed and it looks like it was a
 misunderstanding in the past.
looking at how the commits are squashed, that means the commit message
is *not* rewritten but just appended after each other [2][3], I still
think it’d be better to upstream each commit separately as that way the
author information is kept and it is actually more readable when using
`git log` or `git log --format=oneline`.


Thanks,

Paul


  [1] http://review.coreboot.org/6425
[2]
http://review.coreboot.org/6916/
[3] http://review.coreboot.org/6883