On 21.07.2008 16:25, Uwe Hermann wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:49:04PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> Completely forking the codebase into separate projects is something I'd >> like to avoid because we already have too few development resources. >> > > Full ack. > > >> Suggestion: After 1.0, we create >> - a development branch where people can go wild with rewriting stuff >> - a stable branch with incremental changes where breakage is not allowed. >> > > Nah, overkill and not really useful IMO. > Hm. There have been quite a few disagreements over design and code questions in the recent past. Branching would allow people who share a common vision to showcase what they intend to do without being limited to single patches.
>> I personally believe more in the incremental approach with minimal changes. >> > > Ack. No patch should ever break the build or runtime-behaviour of > flashrom. That doesn't mean we can't do radical changes, such changes > just have to be done in a manner which doesn't break flashrom, either > in small incremental steps or in bigger patch-series which do all > changes at once. But we don't need (or want, IMO) branches for either... > There are philosophical differences as well. Peter and Stefan want to remove #defines and use magic values directly. I heavily disagree with that and believe the code is more readable if the meaning of a constant is visible in the code without having to consult data sheets. I hope that branching is a way to avoid revert wars or NACKs for design reasons. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
