On 09/16/20 19:30, Dong, Guo wrote: > > Hi Laszlo, > > The patchset includes 3 patches, and all of them had been reviewed by package > owners. > The patch submitter has a pull request > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/885, I rebased the patch to latest > master, and merged it by adding reviewed-by found from emails. > I also make sure it passed all the checks before I put "push" button there. > then retrigger a new build with "push" button. > > I am not sure what is missing. If there is any other requirements, should > they be captured during code review or tool check?
- The description field of <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/932/> is empty. It's difficult to tell where the patches come from -- where they were posted and reviewed. A copy of the cover letter should have been included here, plus preferably a link to the v5 mailing list thread (the one that got merged in the end). - It was not confirmed in the v5 mailing list thread that the series had been merged. The confirmation should have included at least one of: (a) the github PR link, (b) the git commit range. (Preferably: both.) It's not the eventual git commits that I'm complaining about, but the lack of communication with the community, and the lack of record for posterity. Myself, I used to consider github PRs a means merely for replacing our earlier direct "git push" commands -- with a CI build + mergify. So, as a maintainer, I would myself queue up several patch sets in a single "batch" PR, add some links to BZs and the mailing list, and let it fly. But then Mike told me this was really wrong, and we should clearly associate any given PR with a specific patch set on the list. This meant an *immense* workload increase for me, in particular because I tend to merge patch sets for *other* people and subsystems too (after they pass review), that is, for such subsystems that I do not co-maintain. In particular during the feature freeze periods. So what really rubs me the wrong way is that, if I am expected to keep all of this meta-data nice and tidy, why aren't some other maintainers? It's a double standard. I can live with either *all of us* ignoring PR tidiness, or *all of us* doing our best to keep everything nicely cross-referenced. But right now I spend significant time and effort on keeping communication and records complete and clean in *all three of* bugzilla, github, and mailing list, whereas a good subset of the maintainers couldn't care less in *either* of those communication channels. For your reference, here's a random PR I submitted and merged for others: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/904 Observe in PR#904: - title carries cover letter subject - description carries cover letter body - description has a pointer to the BZ, and a link to the cover letter in the mailing list archive (two links in fact, in different archives) And then here's my report back on the list: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/64644 And my BZ comment to the same effect (also closing the BZ as RESOLVED|FIXED): https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2376#c9 https://edk2.groups.io/g/bugs/message/12777 I don't insist on the particular information content of github PRs, as -- at this stage -- they really are not more than just a way to set off CI, before pushing/merging a series. What I do insist on is that all of us maintainers (people with permission to set the "push" label) be subject to the same expectations when it comes to creating pull requests. (Please note also that I absolutely don't need a BZ for every contribution. My request is only that *if* there is a BZ, then handle it thoroughly.) Laszlo > > Thanks, > Guo > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Laszlo >> Ersek >> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:57 AM >> To: Dong, Guo <guo.d...@intel.com> >> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; marcello.ba...@9elements.com; Kinney, Michael D >> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address) >> <l...@nuviainc.com>; Doran, Mark <mark.do...@intel.com>; Andrew Fish >> <af...@apple.com>; Guptha, Soumya K <soumya.k.gup...@intel.com> >> Subject: [edk2-devel] more development process failure [was: UefiPayloadPkg: >> Runtime MMCONF] >> >> Guo, >> >> On 08/18/20 10:24, Marcello Sylvester Bauer wrote: >>> Support arbitrary platforms with different or even no MMCONF space. >>> Fixes crash on platforms not exposing 256 buses. >>> >>> Tested on: >>> * AMD Stoney Ridge >>> >>> Branch: https://github.com/9elements/edk2-1/tree/UefiPayloadPkg- >> MMCONF >>> PR: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/885 >>> >>> v5: >>> * MdePkg >>> - support variable size MMCONF in all PciExpressLibs >>> - use (UINTX)-1 as return values for invalid Pci addresses >> >> Okay, so we got more of the same development process violations here, as >> I've just reported at <https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65313>. >> >> See this new pull request: >> >> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/932/ >> >> "No description provided." >> >> You should be embarrassed. >> >> Laszlo >> >> >> >> >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#65339): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65339 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76883567/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
