My understanding is single patch is deemed accepted by one of the following
responses:
1) Maintainer provides Reviewed-by
2) Non-Maintainer provides Reviewed-by, and later a Maintainer provides
Acked-by to indicate they accept the review performed by someone else.
An Acked-by alone by Maintainer is not sufficient.
An Acked-by alone by non-Maintainer is not sufficient.
If Maintainers/Reviewers are not processing patch in a reasonable
period of time, Stewards may act as backup Maintainers for that patch.
I would be concerned about a process that allows a patch to be
merged with only an Acked-by from a Maintainer with zero reviews.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif
> Lindholm
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:53 AM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; a...@kernel.org; Michael Kubacki
> <mikub...@linux.microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Andrew Fish <af...@apple.com>
> Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.muja...@arm.com>; Gerd Hoffmann
> <kra...@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 4/7] ArmVirtPkg.ci.yaml: Add debug
> macro exception
>
> On 2023-09-19 15:46, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 22:35, Michael Kubacki
> > <mikub...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Ard. I still need a Reviewed-by on this patch to complete
> the series.
> >
> > Actually, you don't but I suppose there is some difference of
> > interpretation here.
> >
> > In the Linux community (where these tags originated), an ack from a
> > maintainer means 'no objections, feel free to apply this to code
> that
> > I maintain'. In this case, I am not 100% sure what the change means,
> > so I am not comfortable claiming that I reviewed it, but given that
> > this is your area of expertise rather than mine, I trust that you
> know
> > what you are doing. Hence the acked-by.
> >
> > In other cases, I may rely on another person's expertise and their
> > reviewed-by to decide whether or not to merge something, rather than
> > review it myself. In this case, the acked-by is implied by the fact
> > that I decided to merge the PR (and therefore somewhat redundant).
> But
> > it comes down to the same thing.
> >
> > If there is a Tianocore rule that says every patch needs a reviewed-
> by
> > from a maintainer, we should probably fix that. It is *not* the job
> of
> > a maintainer to review everything (and this wouldn't scale to begin
> > with) - rather, it is their job to ensure that everything that gets
> > merged has been reviewed sufficiently, either by themselves or by
> > other people they have confidence in.
>
> I was under the impression we had this conversation a few years ago
> and
> agreed a maintainer Ack was sufficient. Have we failed to document
> that
> fact?
>
> /
> Leif
>
> >> On 9/13/2023 1:10 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 19:07, <mikub...@linux.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Michael Kubacki <michael.kuba...@microsoft.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Adds a CI YAML entry to acknowledge a case where a macro is
> expanded
> >>>> that contains a print specifier.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianoc...@kernel.org>
> >>>> Cc: Leif Lindholm <quic_llind...@quicinc.com>
> >>>> Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.muja...@arm.com>
> >>>> Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Kubacki <michael.kuba...@microsoft.com>
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org>
> >>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtPkg.ci.yaml | 8 ++++++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtPkg.ci.yaml
> b/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtPkg.ci.yaml
> >>>> index 1e799dc4e194..506b0e72f0bb 100644
> >>>> --- a/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtPkg.ci.yaml
> >>>> +++ b/ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtPkg.ci.yaml
> >>>> @@ -125,5 +125,13 @@
> >>>> ], # words to extend to the dictionary for
> this package
> >>>> "IgnoreStandardPaths": [], # Standard Plugin defined
> paths that should be ignore
> >>>> "AdditionalIncludePaths": [] # Additional paths to
> spell check (wildcards supported)
> >>>> + },
> >>>> +
> >>>> + "DebugMacroCheck": {
> >>>> + "StringSubstitutions": {
> >>>> + #
> DynamicTablesPkg/Include/ConfigurationManagerObject.h
> >>>> + # Reason: Expansion of macro that contains a print
> specifier.
> >>>> + "FMT_CM_OBJECT_ID": "0x%lx"
> >>>> + }
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.42.0.windows.2
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#108847): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108847
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/101341655/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe:
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/leave/9847357/21656/1706620634/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
