I'm actually quite unhappy with the grub's authority in general. Some
people can commit their patches after a week of no replies while others
like me have to wait that someone has time to review their patches in
depth. I already have a collection of patches that are not commited, not
because someone objects against them but just because nobody qualified
enough has time to review and commit it. All this despite having already
signed copyright assignment which because of slowness of FSF took more
time than it should. From developer viewpoint it's very frustrating
experience. If I wasn't so motivated as I am I would have already given
up. IMO opinion if we want people coding for grub2 this has to be
changed. But now you come and say you want to revert some patches just
because they seem useless to you or rewrite some code just because you
find it ugly or because it has a minor bug which could be easily fixed
without rewriting. IMO this can easily drive developers to fork or leave
project altogether. And additionally your energy would be much better
spent in writing new stuff and making/reviewing design propositions than
rewriting chunks of already working code.
Sorry for being somewhat rude but I really find it frustrating this
coder-unfriendliness
In brief, I take back the leadership of this project for general directions.
For some subsystems (e.g. the coreboot support), I continue leaving the
responsibility to those who know better or are more active. Once the current
code is reviewed and fixed (at some degree), I will make a new release.
Any objection?
Regards,
Okuji
--
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
