From: Vijay Khemka <vijaykhemka@fb.com>
To: Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com>
Cc: openbmc <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Intel-ipmi-oem repo
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 21:31:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C01A4B5-928C-4767-85B5-29B4A15A199D@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190122205338.m2giw4ghhievyssc@thinkpad>
On 1/22/19, 12:53 PM, "Brad Bishop" <bradleyb@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.
Yes, I would prefer more of generic code approach which can benefit many users.
Ultimate goal is more manageable code and useful to everyone.
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.
No issue Brad.
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)?
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 prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-22 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-22 18:16 Intel-ipmi-oem repo Vijay Khemka
2019-01-22 20:53 ` Brad Bishop
2019-01-22 21:02 ` Patrick Venture
2019-01-22 21:31 ` Vijay Khemka [this message]
2019-01-22 22:05 ` Ed Tanous
2019-01-22 22:22 ` Vijay Khemka
2019-01-22 23:25 ` Ed Tanous
2019-01-22 23:58 ` Vijay Khemka
2019-01-24 0:42 ` Bills, Jason M
2019-01-23 6:13 ` Tom Joseph
2019-01-23 16:34 ` Ed Tanous
2019-01-23 16:59 ` Brad Bishop
2021-01-13 2:54 Willy Tu
2021-01-14 14:39 ` Brad Bishop
2021-01-14 16:38 ` Ed Tanous
2021-01-14 17:38 ` Vernon Mauery
2021-01-14 19:40 ` Brad Bishop
2021-01-14 20:06 ` Ed Tanous
2021-01-14 21:46 ` Willy Tu
2021-01-15 2:23 ` Lei Yu
2021-01-15 4:20 ` chunhui.jia
2021-01-15 5:59 ` Lei Yu
2021-01-14 18:53 ` Brad Bishop
2021-01-14 20:00 ` Ed Tanous
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3C01A4B5-928C-4767-85B5-29B4A15A199D@fb.com \
--to=vijaykhemka@fb.com \
--cc=bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com \
--cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.