> > On a side note is there any kind of crowd sourcing platform / escrow > service for GPL projects? I know it's been talked about, and there have > been attempts made. But as far as I can tell, nothing has ever prospered.
If someone wanted to work with one of the approved coreboot contractors > or individual contributor to set up a fundraiser of some sort to raise > money to do things like this, that'd be great. We've had a requests for > things like this in the past, but it's not something that the coreboot > project itself can really do. We don't want to pit one group of coreboot > developers against another, and the coreboot project also doesn't deliver > binaries or sign contracts for work, so coreboot can't make guarantees > about deliverables.I'd be happy to help get a fundraiser set up if anyone > is interested in doing the work, but it's going to have to go through an > actual fundraising site, and of course we'd want to have a full written > plan before starting anything. I've seen bountysource employed for various things in the past, from compatibility enhancements for POWER9 to GCC backend implementations for AVR. I think it's reasonably fair, with the bounty available to whoever is willing to put in the work to close the issue. The only thing missing that I can see is the need for an "issue" (a la github issues) that can be "closed" to trigger the end of the bounty. I don't know if gerrit supports such a functionality. On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:46 PM ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: > having read this discussion, and with all respect for all the opinions > so clearly expressed, I still support Arthur's original proposal. > > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 2:20 PM David Hendricks > <david.hendri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> 1. These boards will be gone for the people who check the "mainboards > >> supported by coreboot" and see only the "new Intel stuff". This > >> hinders the coreboot community growth around the "gone boards", and > >> also of the coreboot community in general: the fewer boards are > >> supported by coreboot, the more difficult it is for a potential > >> user/contributor to find the supported board and join us. > > > > > > For the record, we have removed Intel boards from the master branch in > the past - See 4.11_branch. This was for boards that used FSP 1.0, > including popular Baytrail Atom and Broadwell-DE platforms which are still > widely used today. This ensures that those platforms continue existence on > an easy-to-find stable branch where one can reasonably expect to check out > the code and have it work. Checking out the master branch only to find out > that it doesn't work and then bisecting years worth of commits is a poor > user experience. > > > > Perhaps we should follow the 4.11_branch example and do something > similar with old AGESA boards? Boards which are forward-ported and tested > can stay (or be re-introduced) in the master branch, of course. > > > > Many of the AGESA platforms in the list Arthur provided are ~10 years > old. Some are clearly obsolete, like the Gizmosphere boards that have not > been in production for years and whose manufacturer is defunct. Others like > the PCEngines APUs should be more readily available to test and have > developers able to spend some time forward-porting the necessary bits. > > > > Lastly, I'll mention that there is an active crowdfunding effort to > re-upstream KGPE-D16 support: > https://github.com/osresearch/heads/issues/719. There's clearly a lot of > enthusiasm with that board, and 3mdeb is already porting allocate v4 to it. > Perhaps enthusiasts for other boards can piggyback on this effort and > leverage some of their work to bring other boards up to date. > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org > To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org >
_______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
