From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.121.1610129652332944978 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 10:14:12 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=nh5DsWMD; spf=none, err=SPF record not found (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.231, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=bsdio.com; s=xmission; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ocZzelrtP5eO06UX+b0NmEggMKhMwPbASVrnfB6ULCg=; b=nh5DsWMDjKBDHtRTrlD4t9cQcD ys5xaSVYAPF/goqbGuptzW4YV+Zzbq+xogayMMI2g73BGe67WM2CQN+Ol+XYlnzJc1E5E3puRpQu5 g+6cDTpuznJ9fBlGKxHh1pIIHbdhAu+D+onoi3ZvPtx12FtIQ8ULiSZ3M90MJ1l4XATg=; Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kxwH4-001DgG-5D; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:14:10 -0700 Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.68]) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kxwH2-00DSzv-VC; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:14:09 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B725D501167; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:14:08 -0700 (MST) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta4.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta4.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZQO3UHu4gK8d; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:14:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.0.10.142] (c-174-52-16-57.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [174.52.16.57]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74D1C500694; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:14:08 -0700 (MST) To: devel@edk2.groups.io, spbrogan@outlook.com, lersek@redhat.com, bob.c.feng@intel.com Cc: Jordan Justen , Andrew Fish , Ray Ni References: <20201221031930.1799-1-bob.c.feng@intel.com> <1ceee144-3cd0-8991-a381-e368ed4245ef@redhat.com> From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: <05cac02b-c2e3-8cef-8795-59ce6d2a1c71@bsdio.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:14:06 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-XM-SPF: eid=1kxwH2-00DSzv-VC;;;mid=<05cac02b-c2e3-8cef-8795-59ce6d2a1c71@bsdio.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.68;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=none X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa07.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.4 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,NICE_REPLY_A,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01, T_TooManySym_02,TooManyTo_001,TooManyTo_002,TooManyTo_003,XMNoVowels, XMSubLong,XM_B_Unicode autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5002] * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.6 TooManyTo_003 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 4x (uncommon) * 0.5 TooManyTo_002 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 3x (uncommon) * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.0 XM_B_Unicode BODY: Testing for specific types of unicode * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * -0.0 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ***;devel@edk2.groups.io, spbrogan@outlook.com, lersek@redhat.com, bob.c.feng@intel.com X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 674 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 11 (1.6%), b_tie_ro: 10 (1.4%), parse: 1.43 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 5 (0.8%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.79 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.8 (0.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.96 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 1.52 (0.2%), tests_pri_-90: 99 (14.7%), check_bayes: 97 (14.4%), b_tokenize: 8 (1.2%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.9%), b_comp_prob: 2.8 (0.4%), b_tok_touch_all: 77 (11.4%), b_finish: 0.92 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 539 (79.9%), check_dkim_signature: 0.55 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 201 (29.9%), poll_dns_idle: 191 (28.3%), tests_pri_10: 1.93 (0.3%), tests_pri_500: 7 (1.0%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 1/1] EmulatorPkg/PlatformCI: stick with "ubuntu-18.04" for now X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 1/8/21 11:01 AM, Sean wrote: > Question to the community (especially those using a Linux environment) > is what priority should it be to go resolve these and update CI to run > on Ubuntu 20.04?  General premise is we should stay current without > being bleeding edge but I want to understand other perspectives. From previous discussions, it sounds like we did want to be on the bleeding edge - which I personally think is a bad idea, since breaking changes can come in at the worst time. Instead, we should stay on a stable release but watch out for newer versions and move forward to them after applying any fixes. -- Rebecca Cran