Patchwork It's not just v2 anymore

See patch :-)

Am 30.01.2010 15:38, schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
> See patch :-)
Acked-by: Patrick Georgi <patrick.georgi@coresystems.de>

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 06:05:38PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Am 30.01.2010 15:38, schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
> > See patch :-)
> Acked-by: Patrick Georgi <patrick.georgi@coresystems.de>

Maybe not call it 4.0alpha1 but only 4.0. Just as with previous version
numbers it will not change anytime soon and having alpha in the name
doesn't sound too encouraging.

Also: Should we change all v2 strings in code and wiki to read v4
afterwards? Especially the supported boards table should probably say
"v4" I think, to avoid further confusion of why v3 is a higher version
number but everybody works on v2.


Uwe.

On 2/1/10 6:58 PM, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 06:05:38PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
>   
>> Am 30.01.2010 15:38, schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
>>     
>>> See patch :-)
>>>       
>> Acked-by: Patrick Georgi <patrick.georgi@coresystems.de>
>>     
>   
r5096

> Maybe not call it 4.0alpha1 but only 4.0. Just as with previous version
> numbers it will not change anytime soon and having alpha in the name
> doesn't sound too encouraging.
>   
Ok, done it this way.

> Also: Should we change all v2 strings in code and wiki to read v4
> afterwards? Especially the supported boards table should probably say
> "v4" I think, to avoid further confusion of why v3 is a higher version
> number but everybody works on v2.
>   
I think we should just remove the version number from as many pages as
possible... Updates to the wiki should rather reflect CBFS and Kconfig
for all the build tutorials. They are quite out of date since a few
revisions (many even still suggest to cat vgabios.bin coreboot.rom >
coreboot-with-vga.rom, which doesn't work since quite a while)...
Do you have a good hint for a build tutorial that works as a base for a
unified build tutorial? Or could you possibly work on such a tutorial?
With Kconfig being available everywhere, we should make sure people
recognize how simple it became to build coreboot

Stefan

This would be most appreciated. Its difficult to explain to non-techs  
(read manager) that v2 doesn't really mean v2, and that they can't  
draw any comparisons with images built from a 18 month old codebase  
from the *same place* ;-)
(classic "it has the same name, therefore it is the same" problem!)
Thanks for pushing this along, if there's anything I can do,
Cheers.
Edwin

On 8 Feb 2010, at 18:35, Stefan Reinauer wrote:

> On 2/1/10 6:58 PM, Uwe Hermann wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 06:05:38PM +0100, Patrick Georgi wrote:
>>
>>> Am 30.01.2010 15:38, schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
>>>
>>>> See patch :-)
>>>>
>>> Acked-by: Patrick Georgi <patrick.georgi@coresystems.de>
>>>
>>
> r5096
>
>> Maybe not call it 4.0alpha1 but only 4.0. Just as with previous  
>> version
>> numbers it will not change anytime soon and having alpha in the name
>> doesn't sound too encouraging.
>>
> Ok, done it this way.
>
>> Also: Should we change all v2 strings in code and wiki to read v4
>> afterwards? Especially the supported boards table should probably say
>> "v4" I think, to avoid further confusion of why v3 is a higher  
>> version
>> number but everybody works on v2.
>>
> I think we should just remove the version number from as many pages as
> possible... Updates to the wiki should rather reflect CBFS and Kconfig
> for all the build tutorials. They are quite out of date since a few
> revisions (many even still suggest to cat vgabios.bin coreboot.rom >
> coreboot-with-vga.rom, which doesn't work since quite a while)...
> Do you have a good hint for a build tutorial that works as a base  
> for a
> unified build tutorial? Or could you possibly work on such a tutorial?
> With Kconfig being available everywhere, we should make sure people
> recognize how simple it became to build coreboot
>
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 07:35:06PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> > Maybe not call it 4.0alpha1 but only 4.0. Just as with previous version
> > numbers it will not change anytime soon and having alpha in the name
> > doesn't sound too encouraging.
> >   
> Ok, done it this way.

Great, thanks!


> > Also: Should we change all v2 strings in code and wiki to read v4
> > afterwards? Especially the supported boards table should probably say
> > "v4" I think, to avoid further confusion of why v3 is a higher version
> > number but everybody works on v2.
> >   
> I think we should just remove the version number from as many pages as
> possible...

Yep, sounds good.


> Updates to the wiki should rather reflect CBFS and Kconfig
> for all the build tutorials. They are quite out of date since a few
> revisions (many even still suggest to cat vgabios.bin coreboot.rom >
> coreboot-with-vga.rom, which doesn't work since quite a while)...

Yep, I think we should remove all local build instructions _unless_
there are some specific board-dependent hacks or workarounds that are
required. Those should be mentioned in some "Installation hints"
section or something like that.


> Do you have a good hint for a build tutorial that works as a base for a
> unified build tutorial? Or could you possibly work on such a tutorial?

I updated the generic

  http://www.coreboot.org/Build_HOWTO

a bit yesterday, I think it's more or less functional and complete now.
There's no point in explaining in-depth each of the options in
menuconfig, that's what the help texts and

  http://www.coreboot.org/Coreboot_Options

are used for.


> With Kconfig being available everywhere, we should make sure people
> recognize how simple it became to build coreboot

Indeed! Anybody wants to write a short announcement, both to the lists
(coreboot and coreboot-announce) and also in the wiki News section? 
This deserves some more exposure, IMHO. Maybe it will even hit the press.


Uwe.