Hi Laszlo, > -----Original Message----- > From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of > Laszlo Ersek > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 12:05 AM > To: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; Desai, Imran > <imran.de...@intel.com> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>; Zhang, Chao B > <chao.b.zh...@intel.com>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.w...@intel.com>; Yao, > Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; Justen, Jordan L > <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org>; Gao, > Liming <liming....@intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau > <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D > <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] MdePkg, SecurityPkg, OvmfPkg: > revert unreviewed SM3 patches > > On 07/04/19 11:46, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Repo: https://github.com/lersek/edk2.git > > Branch: revert_unreviewed_bz1781 > > > > The MdePkg patch and the OvmfPkg patch committed for > > <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1781> had not been > > reviewed appropriately, so they must be reverted. Due to the MdePkg > > patch being the basis of the entire series, the SecurityPkg patches in > > the middle have to be reverted as well. (Leif pointed out that at least > > some of the SecurityPkg patches were not reviewed *on the list* either, > > so there's that too.) > > I've now pushed this series (commit range 1ec05b81e59f..6a34c1ce7054), > with Leif's (as a steward's) R-b, and Phil's R-b. > > If these patches had been normal patches, obviously I would have waited > for package maintainer review. However, these are *not* normal patches; > they are reverts which return the tree to an earlier state -- to a state > where unreviewed patches had not gone in yet. There's an argument to be > made that Jian should have reverted the original patches without me > having to post a revert series to the list at all -- either way, this > has been urgent because the delta with the unreviewed patches "in" > should be as minimal as possible. (Which is why I took it upon me to > send the set.) For example, a bisection should preferably not hit the > unreviewed range (good point from Leif). Furthermore, if we diverge too > much meanwhile, then the reverts themselves could become messy. >
Understood. Thanks for doing this for me. Regards, Jian > Imran: please resubmit your patches now. Please pay attention to shallow > threading, and to actually working CC's. Regarding the SecurityPkg > patches, if you are going to post them unchanged, please preserve the > Reviewed-by tags from the SecurityPkg maintainers, but *ONLY IF* those > Reviewed-by tags had been given publicly, on the list. (In other words, > if they can be found in the mailing list archive.) > > Thanks > Laszlo > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43326): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/43326 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32306503/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
