Intel-ipmi-oem repo

[Patrick Venture]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:53 PM Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:16:20PM +0000, Vijay Khemka wrote:
> > Team,
> > Intel-ipmi-oem should be broken and 2 parts, genric and oem specific. I
> see several functionality in this repo like sensors and storage commands
> are generic enough to be used by other platform who is using entity
> manager. So I feel that we should have these functionalities to be moved to
> a separate common repo which can be used by everyone and this repo can only
> contain Intel OEM specific IPMI command support.
> >
> > My 2 cents 😊
>
> In general I support the goal here.
>
> More repos, sure.  Let me know what you want them called, who the
> maintainers of each should be, and confirm that they can be licensed
> as Apache-2.0.
>
> Sorry Vijay - I'm going to hijack your thread.  This is something
> I've been thinking about lately and your note put it at a tipping
> point for me.
>
> We have evolved into a bit of a wild-west culture as far as putting code
> (repos) up in the openbmc namespace.  There are simply no rules at all.
> Anyone can simply ask Brad for a repo and it gets created, no questions
> asked, no accountability.
>
> So I guess a quick poll - does anyone find this concerning (or not)?
>

I'm holding the hypothesis that things expand for a bit, and then fall back
onto themselves. -- which maybe isn't the best approach.  I could be wrong,
it could be the universe expanding and accelerating, which has the
unfortunate consequence of moving galaxies further apart -- code less
compatible or allowing more duplication.


>
> fwiw, I think I'm ok with this model at this point in the project,
> assuming that the rules (or lack thereof) apply to everyone equally.
>
> thx - brad
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20190122/06d6a000/attachment-0001.html>