Hi, On 19.01.22 14:27, Jeff Daly wrote: > Intel continues to support inclusion of support for Denverton in coreboot, > but there will be a shift in day to day maintenance is all rather than the > maintenance being completely internal.
AFAICT, this doesn't mean it will shift but it may start. Denverton support in coreboot was mostly a code drop, FWIW, including redundant files, dead code. Not really maintained until the first Intel customer (IIRC, jvdg working for Scaleway) started to work on it. Over the years Intel had put a lot of names into our MAINTAINERS file, but there seemed to be a pattern: the more names, the lower coreboot was a priority. Also, more names often means less experience. For the initial code drop, review was basically skipped, so people never got the chance to learn upstream coreboot development. Might be an issue on our side. Later the maintainers list was made a running joke: When deprecation of the Denverton code was requested, Intel did one thing: They updated the list of names. But nothing else changed; e.g. review request from September, still unanswered. My interpretation: For Intel, maintaining DNV support in coreboot means that they provide contacts for their customers. But the maintainers were never given the resources to work with the open-source community. Rant is just about DNV support. It's a completely different story for other teams at Intel. Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
