The picasso platforms are being worked on in a private repo because it's not bootable at coreboot.org. It's not bootable because the patches that would make it bootable were delayed and rejected.
What's the incentive to work on anything at coreboot.org? Why should any company work at coreboot.org when we just get complaints and grief? Personally, I'm tired of dealing with it. It's become too toxic, so I'm retiring from the project. Martin On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 1:09 PM Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > On 26.01.20 20:36, Martin Roth wrote: > > While it's not my preference, I'm fine with pulling picasso out of the > > tree and doing the development in private if that's the community > > desire. When we're done, it can go in, or not, as the coreboot > > community chooses. Because we can't boot what's in coreboot > > currently, we're being forced to develop the platforms in private > > anyway. > > > > I'd like to note that the only reason it's "Rotting" is because we > > weren't able to get the patches in to get it working. Sure, they > > weren't perfect, but it's a new and different architecture. Instead > > of forcing google to develop it in private so that we can have > > something working, maybe we could have gotten something working into > > the codebase, then improved upon it. > > > > Maybe have a look at what's being forced on us before complaining > > about how we're going about it? > > I'm really confused now, you are the third one that argues that > build tests would force you to work in private. I don't see the > causality here. > > Why is it easier to work in public when you have a stale copy of your > platform on the master branch instead of the start of your commit queue? > > Or am I just to irritated to unterstand... do you mean > private => Gerrit > public => master branch? > > Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
