On 07/05/2018 09:45 AM, Udit Kumar wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:arm.ebbr-discuss- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Mills >> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 6:48 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Introduction: Add a manifesto >> >> Tell people what to expect from EBBR in easy bullet form. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bill Mills <[email protected]> >> --- >> source/chapter1-about.rst | 40 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) >> [snip]
>> +- Implementable and useful today >> + >> + EBBR is always defined so that current U-Boot can implement the >> + requirements > > Current is too generic, better to put some version of u-boot. > U-boot version xyx or later > I agree we need to document that for each release but that should not go here. These statements are suppose to be timeless. They only change if we change policy. If we do some sort of CI report for a release we should be documenting the versions of all the components tested. All: Should I add tianocore here as well? _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
