Dear Robert,
just to put a few points right:
In message 20090421070431.GX5367@pengutronix.de you wrote:
So our intention was and is:
- Wolfgang has a focus on stability and gradual changes. We respect this political position because it is a *good* one.
This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo- lutionary path - this may include bigger changes and reorganizations, but I consider it a bad idea to not provide a reasonable migration path for larger parts of the existing community.
- It was an active decision from our team *not* to fork and call it something else than U-Boot(-v2) when we started. We see that the U-Boot community is strong, it has long term aims and last but not least, it has a *great* bootloader. We talked to Wolfgang before doing so, and Wolfgang's position was in the spirit of "go ahead, here is a git tree, and let the community decide".
This is actually wrong. When we talked about these things, you had already performed a split, and had a up-and-running implementation behind your (kind of closed) doors. It was me who asked you to make this existing code openly available.
What I missed, and what I still consider a big chance that was missed, is any public discussion about such a new design - before the actual work was started, or at least before such irrevocable decisions were made as not to consider any form of an upgrade path.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk