[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 
> > 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.


Ken Fuchs

More information about the coreboot mailing list