Stefan Reinauer wrote: > >> did you test with abuild :-) > > > > No sir. I have neither procedure nor CPU power for abuild. :\ > > Please make yourself familiar with the coreboot procedure, then: > http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines
It says "please run before commit" but not much more. An example would be nice - how do you guys run abuild? I can add it. > It often helps to run abuild on a few targets only. But then it is testing less, that's not as good as a full run right? (Agree still better than no testing!) (Btw I did build a target, but I was not sure what would be the best candidate. As I understood Ron no board actually uses cbfs right now.) > (And, as you saw from my recent patches, abuild not always catches > all breakage the build system detects. It is, nonetheless, useful) I agree! I would however like the build system to be so consistent that the result is always the same in and out of central abuild. I have no idea what is causing the few problems we've seen so far though. :\ > > There is little doubt about the patch, so any errors will get > > fixed quickly in case of mistakes. By me if I can. > > All went fine. Yep! > > Because I have little knowledge of the cbfs usage, and zero > > experience, I suggested someone else might be better suited to > > create these patches. Noone did, and sed is easy enough. > > Probably noone else cared or wanted the rename. The point is to avoid confusion. Next time someone is describing benefits of coreboot we have a name of our own for a technology which is our own. All ways we can make coreboot easier to grok are good, and I think unique terms for unique things really helps (it does for me) when climbing the learning curve. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
