Hi Simon, On mar., avril 22, 2025 at 17:39, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > Tom has indicated that he would like Patman to move out of his tree. I > suggested on another thread[1] that I maintain it in my 'sjg' tree, so > here is a new thread to discuss this. > > I have already done this for the qemu/efi/coreboot scripts as Tom has > NAK'ed patches for those. > > For the other tools there is going to be quite a bit of churn, as I > would like to resolve most of the many Python warnings. > > Given the shared source between the tools, it would be easier for me > to do the same for buildman, binman and qconfig. I am thinking that I > might try a move to allow Gitlab pull-requests for reviews on these as > well as the mailing list, if that is useful. > > For tools which need to sync back to Tom's tree (i.e. not patman), I > or Tom could do a pull request every now and then, omitting any > changes that relate to pylint. > > Please let me know your thoughts. The timing is good as I am going to > be sending out a new Patman feature in the next few weeks and it is a > few thousand more lines of code. I have a preference for binman staying in the U-Boot upstream (Tom's) tree. AFAIK, binman is used by the CI and is also very useful for composing "complex" bootloader images (For example for the TI k3 architecture). I don't know a good replacement of binman and I'm afraid that people will go back to ad-hoc scripts if binman gets removed from the tree :( On the other hand, patman is a workflow tool that's not (I think) that specific to U-Boot and is (to me) replaceable by b4. I understand that code sharing makes it more difficult to only move buildman out of upstream, but in a perfect world, I'd like binman to stay in upstream. Thanks, Mattijs > > Regards, > Simon > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/caflsztg7-ym0l8uujyn7jpsb1lbvoyo76cuwj+h719mfc97...@mail.gmail.com/
