Attention is currently required from: Arthur Heymans, Jonathan Zhang, Johnny Lin, David Hendricks, Christian Walter, Stefan Reinauer, Deomid "rojer" Ryabkov, Tim Chu. Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/57589 )
Change subject: Revert "Add support for Intel Emmitsburg PCH" ......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS1:
Nico => It is sufficient to say revert-first upon breakage, you are absolutely right there. Just no need to threaten forkage whenever someone makes a mistake,
What's the mistake here? I don't mind if something slips review. But taking the branch hostage with a -2 seems pretty offensive. Also, I didn't mean it as a threat. It's a simple causality. There are too many people with submit rights. Some are trigger happy and others don't want breakage. It's easy for the former to force the latter to work for them. CB:54965 has a very low priority for me. Still I took the time to comment on it in the hope that people wouldn't ignore it; still I had to work on it for the past two days. My time is limited and this will set another release back by a month or so (unless we just punch another one through without reviewing all the prematurely merged code since the last one).
I don't see how we can continue under these circumstances. If you see a better solution than to fork, please advice me. Edward, I know you have slowed down piling up new work by now, but I also see nothing done to reduce the already piled (prematurely merged) work. For instance, CB:44073 you know for some time now that it's flawed. Will you ever look into it or is that left to me?
I have a plan for some time now to branch at v1.2 and cherry-pick from master to it, instead of cleaning up after others. If that would be a fully-fledged flashrom fork, idk. More likely to be something my employer requires plus everything easy to keep running (e.g. all SPI flash stuff). Or maybe just a libflashrom2 with a separate UI project.
I would imagine David does care about your concern already.
Maybe.
Your technical arguments are sufficient on their own merit they just need to be understood by the reader. I think what happened here is that you can see something obvious to you but not obvious to David. Let's be patient and care about one another as humans first.
That's why I asked him to slow down. He just ignored that. I could try to explain myself over and over again, but where should I get the time to do so?
David, you have two times in a row in this thread quoted me only partially. It does no good. You just reply to half of a sentence which makes no sense without the other half. My code example came with the words "Makes no sense, no matter the context,". It doesn't help to add and discuss context in such a case (where the context doesn't matter). I hope you see the problem here. I extracted this code example in the hope that you'll see that it's wrong when not distracted by the context. Then you added distracting context again...
It's good to see the -2 removed here. Would you also agree to merge the revert even if I don't have the time to review your follow ups before the next release?
-
Nico Huber (Code Review)