[coreboot] [RFC] Proposal for policy for changing the development guidelines

Alex Gagniuc mr.nuke.me at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 19:30:30 CET 2016

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stefan Reinauer
<stefan.reinauer at coreboot.org> wrote:
> That is a really surprising statement coming from you, Alex, as you and I
> have discussed this very topic in person several times

And as I have said in those very same discussions, decisions about
coreboot shold be done publicly. You're also portraying a distorted
picture of what was actually discussed, but it was still a private
conversation and has no bearing towards what Paul pointed out.

Going back to Paul's proposal, he noted that an official project
guideline had been modified with neither public mail discussion, nor
community oversight. This was not a "minor typo fix" or
"clarification". I count three different changes which were made this
way. And I think Paul nailed it with his proposal.

I fully support Paul's proposal.

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Martin Roth <gaumless at gmail.com> wrote:
> There was significant discussion in several
> meetings about the reasons for and against standardizing on AT&T
> syntax.

As I've explained above, private conversations are not the proper
forum to make decisions related to coreboot. I realize you and others
involved are wearing two hats, and sometimes it's hard to tell which
hat you're wearing, either for you, or observers. Please consider the
image portrayed on your employer, when a group of its employees
unilaterally discusses, changes, then enforces rules in a public
project. I think Paul's proposal fixes this issue.

> If you have a reason for using Intel syntax that is really more
> persuasive than keeping the asm code in the project consistent, feel
> free to state it.

While I have a lot to say of the matter, this is not the appropriate
place. This discussion is about a change to a policy, not a
development guideline. Let's focus on what Paul is saying here.


More information about the coreboot mailing list