[coreboot] Changes to the coreboot Project Structure

Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko phcoder at gmail.com
Sun Mar 23 19:58:43 CET 2014

On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote:
> So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers, but the
> manner in which they are proposed to work. Can you tell me what about
> this upsets you? I want to understand.
The problem is that the proposal is that all commits go through
gatekeepers. It's bottleneck. It makes much more sense to have per-path
maintainers and tiered code.
E.g. we could keep all boards rather than shooting them and the ones
that are considered to be too old can have less stringent requirements
on commits. This will free the qualified people time to concentrate on
boards where it's most important.
Also it will benefit "unimportant" boards as well as they'll be easier
to keep.
 Then per-path maintainer and gatekeeper are contradictory concepts. How
one can be maintainer if he can't commit to his maintained code. I feel,
for example, that nehalem code and resulting boards are my
responsibility and I should be able to commit there easily. Getekeeprs
will make this impossible as I'm more or less the only one who knows
nehalem code *and* cares about it.
I feel like the top-level maintainers would be only about overall
structure, not about details in Board:foo/bar they've never even seen
and solving disputes. Making everything go through 6 people is
unfeasible as 6 people can't represent broad range of interests and some
parts of code will get neglected more that they have to be of simple
scarceness of resources.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 274 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20140323/ad0cabdd/attachment.sig>

More information about the coreboot mailing list