On 5/15/20 11:42 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 05/14/20 18:20, Rebecca Cran wrote:
On May 14, 2020, at 4:24 AM, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
- The community not having any human resources permanently dedicated to
bhyve regressions (testing, review, and post factum fixing) is fine, as
long as the bhyve stakeholders can live with a matching frequency of
regressions.
Yes, I believe that would be acceptable.
Has there been a decision on the directory structure yet, or is that likely to
be something that will need resolved at the next Stewards Meeting?
Based on the discussion thus far, I'd suggest
"OvmfPkg/SecondClass/Bhyve". If you have the time, just go ahead and
submit the series like that, and wait for review.
If you'd first like to be sure that everyone's OK with this pathname,
then please wait for more feedback in this thread.
Please no. SecondClass/ implies some kind of hall of shame, which is not
a fair characterization.
I think it would be better to simply host this code under OvmfPkg/Bhyve,
and put some annotation in Maintainers.txt to document that regressions
that only affect Bhyve are not treated with the same level of urgency as
ones that affect OVMF for QEMU.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#59672): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/59672
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74075377/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
