From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15EF321C91255 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 06:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D073659AD; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:07:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1D073659AD Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-22.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25255C3FA; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:07:37 +0000 (UTC) To: Michael D Kinney , edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Leif Lindholm , Andrew Fish , Jordan Justen References: <20170724234516.12552-1-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <17429ffe-6b32-4b0c-8ec2-669372253d59@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:07:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170724234516.12552-1-michael.d.kinney@intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:07:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Patch V4 0/6] Update to Tiano Contribution Agreement 1.1 X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:05:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/25/17 01:45, Michael D Kinney wrote: > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628 > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629 > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=642 > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643 > > New in V4 > * Revert change to remove commit message details from > Contributions.txt. Instead, this section has been updated to support > both code and documentation patches. > This new agreement does not have any changes for code contributions. > It adds content to cover open source documentation contributions. I was a bit confused why updating the source tree to 1.1 was then justified, but "Patch v4 3/6" explains it well in the commit message. I have one suggestion for patch 3: it says that CodeModule should be omitted from docs patches. However, I suggest that we keep the same format for docs patches as well; "CodeModule" (or rather "DocModule" could refer to the chapter or section of the gitbook that is being modified (chapters and appendices are kept in separate files -- sometimes even in multiple files in separate directories -- in the docbook source trees anyway, and I think "DocModule" could be a logical match). Just my opinion of course. Regarding patch 5, and the special handling of the OvmfPkg license file -- today I commented on that in : > perhaps one root license file with a default license, and pathname > patterns that cumulatively cover all of the exceptions. Or one license > file per package, with a default license for the package, plus > pathname patterns, where the patterns cumulatively cover all of the > exceptions within the package. IIUC, patch #5 would leave two license files in the tree, the tree-wide default, and OVMF's with some exceptions (identified by pathnames). I feel that representing exceptions with two methods ((a) separate license files that override each other, and (b) pathnames in said license files) is a bit confusing. So I think we should *either* (1) have one core license file that spells out all of the exceptions in the tree (by pathname), *or* (2) have package-level, independent license files that spell out exceptions in their own respective, containing packages. Currently patch 5 seems to be a mix of the two. (Note: I use *bold* above in an attempt to make myself clear; it certainly doesn't mean that I "insist" on this. I don't feel very strongly about this, so if you or Jordan disagree with my point, I'm fine. In particular I seem to recall that Jordan disagrees with option (1), and you likely disagree with option (2), because that's what we have right now.) Thanks Laszlo