Personally I don't see any reason for branching, if 99% of the rest of coreboot code (payloads etc.) is compatible. This will only get us outdated for these components on this branch, which otherwise could (and should) be kept simultaneously up-to-date to get the latest goodies. So, just make two folders: 1 - resource allocator v3, 2 - resource allocator v4, and access either v3 or v4 from outside depending on your board selection.
пн, 29 нояб. 2021 г. в 18:53, Nico Huber <nic...@gmx.de>: > > On 29.11.21 15:58, awokd wrote: > > Nico Huber: > >> On 29.11.21 14:49, awokd wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Branching > >>>> --------- > >>>> I know some people are easily offended by the thought, but I want to > >>>> mention it anyway as it seems to me like a cheap solution for the com- > >>>> munity as a whole. We could maintain platforms on separate branches. > >>> > >>> Is this different than the status quo? > >> > >> Yes, these ports wouldn't hold the master branch back anymore. > > > > Meant the status quo approach of deprecating boards and leaving to an > > older branch. I think you are saying it would be a named branch instead. > > > > Well, if I wanted to maintain a branch I would make it dedicated to > these specific ports. That would probably be easier to maintain than > a release branch that covers all ports of the given time. Also, it > seems to me that leaving things on an anonymous release branch provides > too much hope that somebody else will do the work ;) > > Nico > _______________________________________________ > 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
