Hi Simon, On mer., avril 23, 2025 at 06:28, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Mattijs, > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 01:07, Mattijs Korpershoek > <mkorpersh...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Just to clarify this, I'm not suggesting removing binman. It's just > the maintenance and development of new features that I'm referring to. > We would still sync source back to Tom's tree. Got it, thanks. Wouldn't moving the binman development out of upstream reduce contributions/visibility? Or do you think that proposing alternative development process (like Gitlab merge requests) would attract more folks? What would be the policy for development/syncing back to upstream? What happens if binman evolves in a way that's not aligned/practical for upstream (Tom's tree) ? Would that mean that we would have to maintain a fork in upstream? > > Regards, > SImon > >> > [1] >> > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/caflsztg7-ym0l8uujyn7jpsb1lbvoyo76cuwj+h719mfc97...@mail.gmail.com/
