Hi,

On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 at 06:06, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear U-Boot Contributors,
>
> I would like to introduce the U-Boot Concept tree along with a few thoughts 
> on its role in U-Boot.
>
> By way of background, I have been a contributor for about 15 years - around 
> 10k commits and countless reviews. I have introduced many innovations into 
> the project: e.g. sandbox, device tree, C test infrastructure, Binman, 
> standard boot. Of course I could not have done any of this without the U-Boot 
> community (nor would there be any point).
>
> As the U-Boot project has matured, the demands for mainline stability and 
> rigorous review have created a natural friction for landing complex, 
> large-scale feature and refactoring series at the necessary pace. This 
> structural reality, which has slowed the adoption of ambitious efforts like 
> bootstd, VBE, xPL [1], and CI-connected hardware labs, is what the Concept 
> tree is designed to alleviate.
>
> I strongly believe that projects must evolve in order to stay relevant in the 
> long term. This includes code-refactoring, new features and subsystems, along 
> with migration of old code to use them.  A look back at the U-Boot of 2010 
> shows how far the project has come. I don't think anyone would still be using 
> U-Boot if it had not evolved.
>
> I have set up a 'Concept' tree, a possible future for U-Boot, as a way to 
> regain the old pace of innovation. This environment is a proving ground for 
> new features where we maintain a lower bar for risk tolerance and 
> completeness. We will accept partial and speculative features, provided the 
> underlying code remains robust and of high quality, with the shared 
> understanding that features may be dropped if they do not prove beneficial.
>
> Another difference is AI. I believe that AI is the next step on from 
> compilers, which also took a long time to produce good code and find 
> acceptance. The Concept tree welcomes (and encourages) high-quality AI 
> contributions and reviews. It accepts PRs and allows reviews on PRs or the 
> mailing list. It relies 99% on automated tests (sandbox, QEMU and labs) so 
> sets a high bar for testing. It uses a separate Gitlab instance for now and 
> of course uses a separate mailing list and Patchwork project to avoid 
> cluttering the main list. Concept runs an AI-powered cherry-picker so that it 
> keeps up with mainline. In no sense is it operated as a fork.
>
> Once features are landed and functional in Concept I hope that many will find 
> their way to mainline, although inevitably some rework will be needed.
>
> I recognise that introducing a new 'Concept' tree might initially cause 
> confusion or concern. This is an invitation to work together to define its 
> role. I welcome all feedback - positive or negative - here on the mailing 
> list, privately, or on irc. Let’s discuss how this initiative can help U-Boot 
> remain the defining firmware for the 2030s.
>
> [1]  
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFLszTg6sKpZ1yP3Pjgk9_Fx3MOh=iet2oahfglf3_nc+xx...@mail.gmail.com/

Just to report that after some brief discussions, we have agreed on a
path forward here (thank you Peter!).

Concept will become a custodian tree in U-Boot's Gitlab instance. I
will run it, with access to my hardware lab. It will cherry-pick from
mainline and accept code through its own channels (PRs and separate
mailing list + patchwork). When features are ready for mainline, I
will send patches to the main list for review in the normal way.

I have been working to migrate things off u-boot.org (lab, gitlab,
blog... and email). I am transferring u-boot.org to the SFC once this
is finished in the next few days. If we do end up setting up email
addresses for people on u-boot.org, I'd appreciate keeping sjg@

Tom, Neil Peter, please can you ack this to confirm you are happy with it?

>
> Concept tree:
>                        :
>                        ::
>                      ...:::.
>                  ::  :. -
>            .   ::::::-  - ::. ..
>           .:: .:      -==  =.:.
>         ::.- ::::. ::. :=:. ::::
>   ::. ::   =..  :.-::: =:
>     .:-:-. -.::  ::=-:=:
>   ::::::=.  -.::   ===:       ::.
>     ::.:::=::=:   -===:--==-::--::
>       :.    :-=-.:==:.   .:  ::
>                ===:       ::  :
>                ==:
>                ==
>               :==
>               -==:
>               -+=:
>               =++=.
>              .-===:

Regards,
Simon

Reply via email to