On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 20.04.2009 15:43, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:16:13PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > > >> Should I now revert the table part of the patch because I nak it and the > >> original conversion to multiline had more acks than the conversion back > >> to single-line? > >> Sorry, but this is just silly. > >> > > > > Last time round, you committed despite of a lot of complaints. For all > > intents and purpose those complaints were nacks. > > > > Lots of complaints from you and Peter. > > > Yet you overruled them rather badly with this statement: > > http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2009-January/044125.html > > > > My bad. I should have listed the 3 other flashrom developers who agree > with me. So you're outnumbered. > > > > Now, from a million miles away, this situation is just as bad as last > > time, it is just that roles are reversed for you this time. I'm sure > > you've heard this saying before, don't do onto others what you do not > > want to have done to you. > > > > What should have been the case here all along is that this should've > > been based on solid arguments instead of on egos. > > > > Each of us claims to have solid arguments. I think that's abvious by now. > > > > Some arguments came from Ron, as to why he acked this, but they were > > clearly outnumbered by arguments for not taking in the patch. > > If the number of arguments in favour of anything counts, I'll split each > of my arguments into dozens of micro-arguments and I win. You can't be > serious. > > > > Also, Ron > > his arguments were rather general and not specific for this rather > > special case of a really nasty table that will become huge over time. > > > > So you're saying his argument does not apply although it was made in > response to the discussion about this exact table? I'd like to > understand that reasoning. > > > > What you also have to take into account is that this time the signed off > > and the ack come from two people who have been heavily involved with the > > board enables, and who have worked with this table extensively. Last > > time those people came with Nacks, yet you still overruled them > > hardhandedly. > > > > I understood the previous discussion to be a vote and you lost. It seems > our voting eligibility criteria differ. > > > > Please, read the arguments and try to understand them. There are valid > > reasons for this table to be like this, and they outweigh and outnumber > > the few that the other layout had in favour. And don't let this degrade > > as much as last time. > > > > To recap: > 1. If number of flashrom developers counts, I win. (I can dig up the > relevant mailing list posts if you insist.) > 2. If the number of arguments counts, I can split my arguments into > dozens of micro-arguments. You can probably do the same. After some > time, one of us will grow tired of this. > 3. If the number of developers touching the table counts, you claim you > win (I haven't verified that). > > It all burns down on deciding which arguments are valid and who is > eligible to vote/decide if there are valid opposing arguments. If the formatting of the file is so damn important, why not duplicate the file, having one version with the multiline format and a second with the dual-line one? Then a post-commit script keeps the two in sync with each other. Normally, I'm against duplicated code, but this argument got old months ago, I'll ack any patch that ends it. -Corey
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
