[coreboot] coreboot and U-Boot: a comparison
Ken.Fuchs at bench.com
Ken.Fuchs at bench.com
Tue Jun 24 01:27:21 CEST 2008
> > Ken Fuchs wrote:
> >> 8) U-Boot now has architecture specific git repositories for
> >> active development available via http protocol that passes
> >> through most firewalls transparently. coreboot has a
> >> single SVN repository that seems to be accessible only
> >> via the svn protocol which requires that the svn port
> >> be open on the firewall which is often impossible to get
> >> approved, since it is a "non-standard" port.
> ron minnich schrieb:
> > ah, git. Love it or hate it. I know people who have used it and now
> > stopped. We had a truly terrible experience with LB and arch years
> > ago, and the SCM question is a sensitive one. I have had people tell
> > me "move to git" and others tell me "please please DON'T
> > EVER MOVE TO
> > GIT".
Patrick Georgi wrote:
> I think, the main request here is to have the repo available over a
> "standard port" (yay, it's PHBs and BOFHs ruining the party again).
>
> We already provide the cbv2 repo over https (as documented on
> http://www.coreboot.org/Download_coreboot ), and it should be easy to
> provide the other repos as well. It should be easy to map
> them into the
> http namespace on coreboot.org, if that's truly necessary.
Yes, all source available from the Subversion repository via
http/https is what I'm mainly looking for. Read only
access would allow update of a developer's current tree.
I actually advocated Subversion when arch was chosen a few
years ago. Subversion is a good SCM, but a lot of open source
projects have moved to git. However, if Subversion is adequate,
I see no pressing reason to switch to git. There are some
nice tools to track source code at a high level via git though.
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs
More information about the coreboot
mailing list