On 03/04/20 20:22, Nikita Leshenko wrote: > This series adds driver support for: > - LSI53C1030 > - SAS1068 > - SAS1068E > > These controllers are widely supported by QEMU, VirtualBox and VMWare. > This work is part of the more general agenda of enhancing OVMF boot > device support to have feature parity with SeaBIOS. > > We have also developed support for PVSCSI which we will submit in a > separate patch series. > > I pushed a copy of these patches to > https://github.com/nikital/edk2/tree/mptscsi_v3 > > Note that I didn't address Laszlo's comment on v2 about BSD vs > BSD+patent licensing, it needs some internal discussion. I would still > like move forward with the review so I'm submitting v3 with the old > license for now.
Sorry, this doesn't work for me. You seem to have removed the old "Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1" lines from the commit messages, and that's great. (My understanding is that those lines are now deal-breakers, because said "Contribution Agreement" is no longer in effect, or even described in the project, except in the "License-History.txt" file.) What does not work for me is reviewing a patch set that the submitter *knows* is unmergeable. I absolutely don't have time for that. Please submit a patch set that you honestly believe can be merged as-is. To be clear, the 2-Clause BSD License (SPDX short identifier: BSD-2-Clause) *is* acceptable, according to "Readme.md"; and I'm not trying to force you to contribute under "SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent". However, I explained at [1] that "Readme.md" contains the following passage: > The majority of the content in the EDK II open source project uses a > [BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License](License.txt). The EDK II open source > project > contains the following components that are covered by additional licenses: > * [...] > * [OvmfPkg](OvmfPkg/License.txt) > * [...] and I asked that you please extend "OvmfPkg/License.txt", should you prefer to make this contribution under "BSD-2-Clause". [1] a202d92e-61e1-187b-be47-e60ad282c575@redhat.com">http://mid.mail-archive.com/a202d92e-61e1-187b-be47-e60ad282c575@redhat.com https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/55049 This (v3) posting is under "BSD-2-Clause" (which is fine), but the cumulative diffstat does not mention "OvmfPkg/License.txt", against my express request. Similarly counter to my express request, you have not adopted the SPDX notation even for "BSD-2-Clause". I think you may have thought that we could make progress on the technical details while you figured out your preferred license, and in the end, you'd *unconditionally* repost the series (even if it were technically perfect at v3), with one of the following modifications: - you'd stick with "BSD-2-Clause", and extend "OvmfPkg/License.txt", - or else you'd switch to "BSD-2-Clause-Patent". To be clear, this approach does not work for me. I don't have time for spurious reviews. When you post v(n+1) of the series, I have to: - fetch that from your repo and/or apply it from the list, - pull up my review notes that I had given for v(n), - compare every single patch in the v(n+1) series against the v(n) counterpart, and verify that your changes are in sync with my requests -- even if my only feedback for v(n) was a "Reviewed-by", - and generally page-in the whole topic against a "cold cache", possibly from a distance of a week or more. I can't do this *spuriously*. The bottleneck is at the review side, not at the contribution side. Of course, people do sometimes post RFC patches (marked as such). That's a great tool to discuss prototypes and new ideas. I give RFC series a *fraction* of the attention that I give to real PATCH series. I might ignore RFCs completely. Please post v4 with either the license flipped to "BSD-2-Clause-Patent", or with "OvmfPkg/License.txt" modified. If you need time to decide, please post v4 when you have decided. Per <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2390>: - Your v1 posting was in January 2019, - you announced starting work on v2 in November 2019, - you posted v2 in February 2020. In response to every one of the v1 through v3 postings, I followed up in at most 3 days, as much as I can tell. I think we can now wait for a week or two until your Legal Department figures out the license under which they would like you to make this contribution. Thanks, Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#55559): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/55559 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/71733479/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
