3 ms·

Indeed. It seems like the reasoning was pretty explicit, here's the commit message: https://notabug.org/libreboot/libreboot/commit/27fce189cd1cd9cc93494a76af55

Indeed. It seems like the reasoning was pretty explicit, here's the commit message: https://notabug.org/libreboot/libreboot/commit/27fce189cd1cd9cc93494a76af558dae47557d50 https://notabug.org/libreboot/libreboot/commit/27fce189cd1cd... Honestly, without knowing the project and contributors, I'd be inclined to support a "coup" establishing a new maintainership policy in an otherwise-moribund project. There are good forks and bad forks, and likewise there can be good "coups" which act to restart active development.

junon 6y ago
Err, sorry. No. Maintainers with copyright holdings and history and otherwise agreed-upon governance do not deserve a "coup", regardless of how [in]active the project is. There are lots of dead projects in the OSS sphere. Fork it if you have a problem with one of them. Don't plagiarize and rewrite history on the main repositories/projects, though. That's just poor form.
- smoldesu 6y ago
  >Fork it if you have a problem with one of them. Apparently, that seems to be what Leah is doing: >"I will soon be forking osboot (which itself is a fork of Libreboot 20160907) to create a new Libreboot release."
  - junon 6y ago
    Then there's no reason for her to be disparaging and erasing the other maintainers. Also, I question what "fork" really means here.
    - will4274 6y ago
      The other maintainers never released anything - they spent four years on a staled rewrite that was going nowhere and blocked any meaningful progress, per her commit. If accurate, I can understand the desire to nuke it.