Thanks Liming for the comments. Added my replies. /Guo > -----Original Message----- > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of gaoliming > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:45 PM > To: Dong, Guo <guo.d...@intel.com>; 'Andrew Fish' <af...@apple.com>; > 'edk2-devel-groups-io' <devel@edk2.groups.io>; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com> > Cc: ler...@redhat.com; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; > 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>; Guptha, Soumya > K <soumya.k.gup...@intel.com> > Subject: 回复: [edk2-devel] more development process failure [was: > UefiPayloadPkg: Runtime MMCONF] > > Guo: > I add my comments. > > Thanks > Liming > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Dong, Guo <guo.d...@intel.com> > > 发送时间: 2020年9月26日 8:35 > > 收件人: Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>; edk2-devel-groups-io > > <devel@edk2.groups.io>; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com> > > 抄送: ler...@redhat.com; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>; > > gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn; 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>; Guptha, > > Soumya K <soumya.k.gup...@intel.com> > > 主题: RE: [edk2-devel] more development process failure [was: > > UefiPayloadPkg: Runtime MMCONF] > > > > > > Sorry to have a long email thread since my merge and thanks all for the > > comments. > > In general, I still feel current process is a little complicated for the > maintainers > > who don't > > daily work on EDK2 like me. I have less than %5 of time spent on open > > source EDK2 > > UefiPayloadPkg since I focus on bootloaders. It would be great if I could > > spend the time > > mainly on code review instead of the process as of now. > > [Liming] I understand your case. > > > > > Even after I read > > https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II- > > Development-Process#the-maintainer-process-for-the-edk-ii-project as > > Liming pointed out, > > Some info is still not clear for me. E.g. what's the purpose for putting > > cover > > letter to patch > > set pull request (it looks we could not trace to this PR from code)? is it > > mandatory or optional? > > What if there is no cover letter in the patch set in patch #0 summary? For > > the > > patch I merged, > > I am still not very sure what info I should put there. > > [Liming] The purpose is to relate pull request and BZ. The people can review > pull request > to get all information. If the patch set includes more than one patch, it will > need cover letter. > If the patch set includes only one patch, its patch title and description > will auto > be inserted into > the created pull request. No cover letter is required. >
It makes sense to add descriptions in pull request if there is BZ as the process required. But the patch I merged doesn’t have a related BZ. There is no point to add a description in pull request based on this purpose. > > > > I don't know why Laszlo mentioned BZ for my merge since there is no BZ > > mentioned in the patchset. > > And I also don't know why Laszlo mentioned to send email after the patch is > > merged since I don't find this > > requirement in the development process. I don't think it is doable to ask > > all > > the maintainers to monitor EDK2 > > mail list on how others are doing since there are so many emails every day, > > especially there is no any patch > > for UefiPayloadPkg for several months. > > [Liming] The maintainer sends the email with the merged commit message to > the > mail list so that the patch contributor knows that his patch has been merged. > Understand your point. But from the process page you shared, there is no such rule there. and it also mentioned "Email notifications for pull requests, pushes, and check status results are enabled by watching the EDK II repository". So it looks the process prefer user to "watch the EDKII repository" if they want to know if a patch is merged or not. > > > > I hope we could simplify the process and have a clear steps in the process > > soon. So that the maintainers could > > focus on the actual code review. > > [Liming] I would suggest to highlight the role of maintainer and reviewer. > The reviewer should take same roles to the maintainer except for the patch > merge. > So, you prefer you take reviewer role only. > I just express my expectation in the process in future to save effort for maintainers. I could help to merge the simple patches for UefiPayloadPkg if I have time. > Thanks > Liming > > > > Thanks, > > Guo > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#65673): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65673 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/77158837/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
