[coreboot] Proposal: Removing obsolete & EOL boards and chipsets for 4.2 release

Gerd Hoffmann kraxel at redhat.com
Thu Oct 29 10:52:53 CET 2015

On Mi, 2015-10-28 at 08:43 -0700, Alex G. wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 07:00 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Patrick Georgi wrote:
> >> branches are where commits are pushed to die.
> > 
> > Yes, this is a very important point, and is why I don't support Alex'
> > proposal of moving some things to live only on a branch, and not on master.
> So, tagging and removing is better than a branch where people can
> continue to work, and submit patches via coreboot.org?

Typically branches are used for two purposes:

(1) stable releases.  Tag v4.2, branch off, possibly tag v4.2.1 bugfix
    Typically no development happens here, often projects even have the
    policy that fixes need to land in master before they are allowed to
    be cherry-picked into a stable branch.

(2) development branches.  New stuff, intended to be merged in master.

Have a branch to park unliked code there is just a bad excuse IMO.
Don't do that.

If there is dead code, i.e. boards not being sold any more and not
having seen updates (other than tree-wide cleanups) for years -- just
remove them, and document the last release supporting that hardware.

For AGESA I don't think it should be removed.  Even if the plan is to
obsolete the code some day with native support in codeboot -- I think
for the time being it is useful for developers to be able to look at the
code, to be able to build agesa/native versions of a board from the same
coreboot code base, for regression testing and bringing native on par
with agesa ...


More information about the coreboot mailing list