Guo: On pull request, https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Development-Process#the-maintainer-process-for-the-edk-ii-project section 7 gives the requirement. If <new-integration-branch> is a patch series, then copy the patch #0 summary into the pull request description.
Laszlo: I think we can enhance wiki page https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Development-Process#the-maintainer-process-for-the-edk-ii-project to add another step to reply the patch mail with the merged pull request or commit after PR is merged. Thanks Liming > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: bounce+27952+65339+4905953+8761...@groups.io > <bounce+27952+65339+4905953+8761...@groups.io> 代表 Laszlo Ersek > 发送时间: 2020年9月17日 2:14 > 收件人: Dong, Guo <guo.d...@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io > 抄送: 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> > 主题: Re: [edk2-devel] more development process failure [was: > UefiPayloadPkg: Runtime MMCONF] > > 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 (#65348): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65348 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76901786/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
