Hi Christian, Christian Walter wrote: > thanks for the feedback. I am totally on your site that this is not an > ideal solution - however the coreboot community has to think about how > to work around these issues.
I disagree; this isn't an issue for the community, it's /your/ issue in /your/ project that you're (presumably) billing /your/ customer for. > Stating that this just does not get merged > into the tree is not a good solution, as we are not moving forward on > these topics and can not compete with proprietary solutions if we are > holding on to the statement that also tooling needs to be open-source. I think you're forgetting your role as an expert within the ecosystem; you have to make sure to raise this issue or learning to your customer. And if you've made recommendations, suggestions or decisions that led into a temporary dead-end then you have to own that fact towards your customer. > However: we cleared out the NDA issues and released the tool into the > public [1]. That's good news! So the original question in this thread is no longer the right one to ask, correct? Published tooling means that you are/have submitting patches which use the tooling to prepare more trusted artifacts? If yes, it would seem that the known-bad short term solution was unneccessary and that the community decision to reject it was correct. Woop! //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
