Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] ShellPkg/DynamicCommand: add HttpDynamicCommand

["Vladimir Olovyannikov" <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 5:20 AM
> To: Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>;
> devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@arm.com>; Zhichao
> Gao <zhichao.gao@intel.com>; Maciej Rabeda
> <maciej.rabeda@linux.intel.com>; Jiaxin Wu <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>; Siyuan
> Fu <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>; Liming Gao
> <liming.gao@intel.com>; Nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v3 1/1] ShellPkg/DynamicCommand: add
> HttpDynamicCommand
>
> On 07/15/20 19:09, Vladimir Olovyannikov wrote:
> > Hi Laszlo,
> >
> > Thank you for supporting this.
> > I can add required support.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > But shouldn't we wait until the patch is reviewed and approved first?
> > I don't know the proper procedure. Please advise.
>
> If a v4 of your patch becomes necessary, based on the ShellPkg
> maintainers'
> review, then my suggestion would be to send v4 as a patch series, not as a
> single patch. The v4 1/3 patch would be the current patch (with updates as
> requested by the ShellPkg reviewers). The v4 2/3 patch would extend
> ArmVirtPkg to include the new dynamic command. The v4
> 3/3 patch would do the same for OvmfPkg.
>
> If a v4 of your patch turns out to be unnecessary (i.e., in case the
> ShellPkg
> maintainers merge your v3 patch as-is), then sending a separate 2-part
> series
> (1/2: ArmVirtPkg, 2/2: OvmfPkg) would be straightforward, in my opinion.
>
> Thank you for considering my request (and for implementing the feature in
> the first place, of course)!
>
> Laszlo
Thank you Laszlo,
Sure, this makes sense. I will send a patchset for ArmVirtPkg and OvmfPkg as
you suggested.

Vladimir