Am Donnerstag, den 15.01.2015, 16:08 -0800 schrieb David Hendricks:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
Issues which are closed now will almost certainly remain that way.
Should those be referenced in the source code then?
Probably not, but at some point it just doesn't matter.
Or should they at least be marked, for example with `(restricted)`?
Not at the expense of time/effort that can be better spent putting coreboot on more products. Besides, that would just increase deltas between trees with little or no gain.
I disagree and your first argument can be used every time something requires effort to make it suitable for upstream inclusion. In my opinion it is something in the development process that needs to be addressed and improved.
The person reading the source expects the URL to be accessible especially when almost all of these “crosbug” URLs can be accessed.
But in the end, it looks like I am the only one having a problem with this, so I’ll have to accept that. Sorry for the noise.
Thanks,
Paul
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Paul Menzel < paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.01.2015, 16:08 -0800 schrieb David Hendricks:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
Issues which are closed now will almost certainly remain that way.
Should those be referenced in the source code then?
Probably not, but at some point it just doesn't matter.
Or should they at least be marked, for example with `(restricted)`?
Not at the expense of time/effort that can be better spent putting
coreboot
on more products. Besides, that would just increase deltas between trees with little or no gain.
I disagree and your first argument can be used every time something requires effort to make it suitable for upstream inclusion. In my opinion it is something in the development process that needs to be addressed and improved.
The person reading the source expects the URL to be accessible especially when almost all of these “crosbug” URLs can be accessed.
But in the end, it looks like I am the only one having a problem with this, so I’ll have to accept that. Sorry for the noise.
No, my argument cannot be used "every time something requires effort to make suitable" for upstreaming. This is evident by Sage's porting - Marc has been putting a lot of time and effort into updating our patches so that they are usable and actually worth something to the community. That produces real value. Notice how many more vendors are posting to the list these days. A few cosmetic blemishes is a small price to pay for growing the ecosystem.
You do have a point, though. We've all been frustrated with blobs of code that are poorly documented. Some companies "resolve" this (and their other paranoid issues) by simply scrubbing all comments and documentation out of the code prior to release. I prefer we not do that. At least with the current way you can ask about what a particular issue may have been that justifies mentioning it in the code.
-
David Hendricks -
Paul Menzel