Patch Set 4:
(3 comments)
I like the USB code and its potential to unify programmer
parameters. It belongs into a separate patch, though, to
ease review.Ah I squashed it in so this is a functional bit of code upon it's own merits. Maybe we can separate out in the final round?
Final round of what? This review here? Reviewing two patches
of 500 lines each usually goes twice as fast as reviewing
a big 1k line one... Gerrit is a great tool to assist with
reviewing, but that doesn't help if patches aren't organized
for review.
I mean first round because I had to get it to even build, fit and work in the upstream tree. If I prepared the usb patch on its own then that would be dead code and one could quite easily complain that I am asking for review for code that isn't even used yet. It's hard to telescope ahead and see how people will take it so beginning with some self-contained code that does a thing seemed like a reasonable starting point. That was my rational.
1 comment:
Patch Set #3, Line 64: return
> I brought up the same point in the cros/flashrom tree. I very much agree. […]
Sorry for the delay on this, there has been holidays here and large fires across Australia..
This is getting fixed in our tree here:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/2026830
Nico, that's all well and good saying "just fix everything all at once and everything is good then" but in practice that is extremely hard juggling two trees that have diverged over a decade. Your talking as if I always worked at Google and haven't been an external contributor before using my own personal time reviewing patches. I think that is what Damien is getting at here in that I am well aware of the challenges on both sides.
I think your comment about me not fixing issues is a bit insensitive if you happen to be following the news.. There are real people behind keyboards that face life challenges however I digress.
Regarding resourcing the flashrom project. That is exactly the aim I am pushing for internally is to STOP Google going off and writing their own replacement, instead converge with upstream and provide it resources it needs to live and grow. It is very challenging to actually get to that state simply on my own with every step precision perfect every time. I am looking to work *with the community* here and not looking for criticism. If there is a issue lets fix things together, work together and get this converged so we can actually get to a better place.
TL;DR: I will most certainly fix issues to the best of my ability but I cannot promise every step I make is perfect in bringing together two trees after 9y apart with zero tests.
To view, visit change 38209. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.