[coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

mrnuke mr.nuke.me at gmail.com
Sun Mar 23 19:27:59 CET 2014

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 05:37:37 PM Peter Stuge wrote:
> David Hubbard wrote:
> > But Peter, what's your take on Alex's suggestion: "What do we need to
> > do to allow commercial contributors to work directly upstream? And
> > before you discount this question for menial technical reasons,
> > please take a moment to keep this conversation open, and let's try
> > to find an answer."
> I think Alex has his heart in the right place but I also think that
> it is a bit naïve to believe that coreboot would be able to do
> anything to allow commercial contributors to work directly upstream.
In the current model, where every patch needs to go through our gerrit, and be 
met by highly experienced shed builders, no there's nothing we can really do. 
However, if we're going to change the model, this remains a valid point to 
look at.

> This isn't up to coreboot, it isn't something coreboot can influence
> in any other way than by becoming more relevant in the firmware market.
Sure it can... by adopting a development model that makes sense to said 
commercial entity... by eliminating some of the unnecessary hurdles in 
upstreaming the code. I sense your comments are under the assumption that 
everyone uses AMD's model -- write lots of code with NDA'd docs, then scrub it 
clean before upstreaming. 
It's still up to the vendor how closely they want to work with upstream, but 
they ain't gonna do it if the process ain't friendly. As an upstream, we need 
to provide a friendly way of "doing business". And yes, we can do that.


More information about the coreboot mailing list