On 10/06/20 18:29, Leif Lindholm wrote: > Hi Abner, > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 5:20 PM Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) < > abner.ch...@hpe.com> wrote: >>>> diff --git a/RedfishPkg/RedfishPkg.dsc b/RedfishPkg/RedfishPkg.dsc new >>>> file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d5c65f68c3 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/RedfishPkg/RedfishPkg.dsc >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ >>>> +## @file >>>> +# Redfish Package >>>> +# >>>> +# Copyright (c) 2019, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.<BR> # >>>> +(C) Copyright 2020 Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Development LP. >>>> +# >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent >>>> +# >>>> +## >>>> + >>>> +[Defines] >>>> + PLATFORM_NAME = RedfishPkg >>>> + PLATFORM_GUID = > c4352870-5232-11e7-9522-005056c00008 >>>> + PLATFORM_VERSION = 1.0 >>>> + DSC_SPECIFICATION = 0x0001001c >>>> + OUTPUT_DIRECTORY = Build/RedfishPkg >>>> + SUPPORTED_ARCHITECTURES = IA32|X64|ARM|AARCH64|RISCV64 >>>> + BUILD_TARGETS = DEBUG|RELEASE >>> >>> v3 included NOOPT here. That was the version Laszlo gave his R-b for. >>> >>> v4 cover letter does mention NOOPT being removed, but I can see no >>> conversation in which this is discussed. What have I missed? >> >> No Leif, you did miss nothing. There was some Q/A conversations between > Bret and me about the build target of CI. > > This should really be referenced in the cover letter. > >> We would like to keep NO-TARGET for the non-build CI test but remove > NOOPT for now because we do not have >> the host-based unit test at the moment. We would like to add NOOPT back > once we have the corresponding unit test on RedfishPkg. > > Right, but dropping it from the .dsc BUILD_TARGETS is not required for that. > And it's not clear to me that Laszlo noticed this change.
I missed it. The v4 blurb said, "Note for v4: NOOPT is removed from RedfishPkg.dsc [...]", and then I wrote in my v4 patch#1 response, "According to the v4 blurb, this patch has not undergone any changes since v3". So I clearly missed the actual meaning of the blurb. Sorry about that. I guess I'm more used to patch-granularity changelogs. Also I believe I didn't expect this series to reach v5, so I didn't do my usual thing where I apply every version of a patch set separately on a local topic branch, and then do incremental reviews with git-range-diff. So it's my fault. A better (patch-granularity) changelog might have mitigated my mistake, perhaps. (BTW I've not been CC'd on any version of the blurb.) Thanks Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#65937): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65937 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/77344489/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
