From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com (mail-wm1-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.12165.1601460814739871156 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:13:35 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@nuviainc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=BGG8OPHq; spf=pass (domain: nuviainc.com, ip: 209.85.128.43, mailfrom: leif@nuviainc.com) Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id e2so1107281wme.1 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:13:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nuviainc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=/lb78b0SMEZ5z5rRGq67oKHuluF9d1xPNjdVOeJhYII=; b=BGG8OPHqfvXdccebvsAakZTsIxQonz6vLBPxeTPW74t5Pn7rMRzG9EbefBwyw4Nggj hHFLqGzPbDa+01XvB+36DOdTjGwYNNeY0pM5jkaUHDhHTLahTAoU9Cjn6bzyD+MaY/2P xCiSloGz2w5ocZ5wC6ebfkrRLzScl9f4fIxIkmYrdaP1tEl2TGcVRvWN5TPukEu6BWtW cjIXWqhX+7Qc42oMjzBQFsIfyiyKNGxpTjrSFEFlrXc5sdn+qbhORppHFB+pRt4OGqLU wsIMHx+ZHjPbb7yei2St0vzJebW/3Dj621vDj/iPmWvOXE52J5bfXvMQzMAuoDJzOvFD r/1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/lb78b0SMEZ5z5rRGq67oKHuluF9d1xPNjdVOeJhYII=; b=L2WeMqjrJrbbhNeKY31ag2PVP3Mkp073EdVkcbvU0ecEp/ySGadSSgOPtR9BtuCB4V oI5IhQK5OLJt1pPNfCr+k4OMec2+iJ4Dqplg6OHaOfepBxvSE1TYqNoiGd4+jZXY+0N0 zRd9nmO8LwI+Y28AXt6gHQqNr8n1b7diD3VYvRJKy532DBvOp3drFyDVaUBApjkux68G FXQgF7YBdGfqEkaJTDlo+Pe5dJAhG9YzflSj+c1FezlTGxH19RlIhEOuJmdprPc1OuQj 4ALMNr4pX4gImE/HZHVUM7hRu7o+P1DVe3hXLFN108k81lMr2XMlHkXoN/WR3mSmh7Zb G8ng== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531NEZrEsdq+NbqHs8WumyyXoDMTbgh7cUNXx6jgb181bTlU8nJg NR3WRVp1ZSQelDKmq5Z9zhNs/w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJznFTVr0/AnsbhxTed7GPoaVwMlam4pSl7U3ZDiW2CXEq/nOoCWLVEd+Jfqzf2OKer5OyMEgA== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf26:: with SMTP id m6mr2138459wmg.71.1601460813081; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from vanye ([2001:470:1f09:12f0:b26e:bfff:fea9:f1b8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f23sm1158043wmf.6.2020.09.30.03.13.31 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:13:25 +0100 From: "Leif Lindholm" To: gaoliming Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, jiewen.yao@intel.com, "'Guptha, Soumya K'" , announce@edk2.groups.io, lersek@redhat.com, "'Kinney, Michael D'" , 'Andrew Fish' Subject: =?UTF-8?B?5Zue5aSNOiBbZWRrMi1kZXZlbF0gVGlhbm9jb3JlIGNvbW11bml0eSBwYWdlIG9uIHdobyB3ZSBhcmUgLSBwbGVhc2UgcmV2aWV3?= Message-ID: <20200930101325.GE5623@vanye> References: <16383D375E5994D7.27235@groups.io> <005f01d69476$81768bd0$8463a370$@byosoft.com.cn> <20200928120131.GA5623@vanye> <009a01d6970b$a8d60100$fa820300$@byosoft.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <009a01d6970b$a8d60100$fa820300$@byosoft.com.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Agreed. Reviever or Maintainer can approve a patch. Any Maintainer can push a patch that has been approved. This can happen either: - when the designated Maintainer for that patch is unavailable/unresponsive - if the patch submitter is also a Maintainer of some other part of the repo. No one can approve their own patches. The act of adding a Reviewer means delegating the approval work to them. Best Regards, Leif On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 17:25:38 +0800, gaoliming wrote: > Jiewen: > Frankly speaking, I don't know this rule that the patch needs to > get review or ack from the maintainer. When the reviewer name is > formally added into maintainers.txt, I think the maintainer has > delegated the approval work to reviewers. So, I think that the > reviewer takes the same role to the maintainer except for the > patch merge. > > Thanks > Liming > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: bounce+27952+65748+4905953+8761045@groups.io > > 代表 Yao, Jiewen > > 发送时间: 2020年9月30日 10:12 > > 收件人: Leif Lindholm > > 抄送: gaoliming ; devel@edk2.groups.io; > > Guptha, Soumya K ; > > announce@edk2.groups.io; lersek@redhat.com; Kinney, Michael D > > ; 'Andrew Fish' > > 主题: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-announce] 回复: [edk2-devel] Tianocore > > community page on who we are - please review > > > > Hi Leif and Liming > > I have double checked with Mike Kinney on the role and responsibility of > > reviewers. > > Mike and I reach the consensus below (a short version, detail will be added to > > the wiki page later): > > > > 1) Maintainers are the ONLY ones who can approve a patch. > > 2) Reviewers CANNOT approve the patch. (*) > > 3) A maintainer CANNOT approve his/her own patch. > > 4) Maintainers MAY delegate the approval work to reviewers. > > > > So the final state of the commit message as a minimum must be either: > > Reviewed-by: > > Or: > > Acked-by: > > Reviewed-by: > > > > All in all, I don’t think it is correct to say "Reviewers can approve the patch. > > The only additional work from maintainers is to check in the patch". > > > > Please let us know if you have different thought. > > > > Thank you > > Yao Jiewen > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Leif Lindholm > > > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 8:02 PM > > > To: Yao, Jiewen > > > Cc: gaoliming ; devel@edk2.groups.io; > > Guptha, > > > Soumya K ; announce@edk2.groups.io; > > > lersek@redhat.com; Kinney, Michael D ; > > 'Andrew > > > Fish' > > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-announce] 回复: [edk2-devel] > > Tianocore > > > community page on who we are - please review > > > > > > Hi Jiewen, > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 03:25:24 +0000, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > > > > Thanks Liming. > > > > > > > > It seems I have some misunderstanding here. > > > > > > > > According to current process, I feel that only maintainer has right to > > > *approve* the patch. > > > > The reviewer cannot approve the patch. > > > > Do you mean the reviewer can also approve the patch? > > > > > > My view is that a reviewer has a right to "approve" a patch, but they > > > do not have access to actually push the patch. A maintainer is needed > > > for that. In instances where a designated maintainer is unavaliable to > > > do so, another maintainer would be permitted to push the patch. > > > > > > In instances where the designated maintainer disagrees with the > > > reviewer, the patch should not be pushed. However, the same should be > > > true for a patch where two designated maintainers or two designated > > > reviewers disagree. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Leif > > > > > > > According to > > https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Who-we- > > > are#role-of-a-reviewer, I don’t think "Reviewer takes role 1~4.". (I am > > confused > > > here ... So please do correct me if I am wrong.) > > > > ================= > > > > Role of a Reviewer > > > > Reviewers help maintainers review code, but don't have push access. > > > > > > > > A designated Package Reviewer: > > > > > > > > shall be reasonably familiar with the Package (or some modules thereof) > > > > > > > > will be copied on the patch discussions, > > > > > > > > and/or provides testing or regression testing for the Package (or some > > > modules thereof), in certain platforms and environments. > > > > ================ > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > Yao Jiewen > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: announce@edk2.groups.io On > > Behalf Of > > > > > gaoliming > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 10:33 AM > > > > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Yao, Jiewen ; > > Guptha, > > > > > Soumya K ; announce@edk2.groups.io > > > > > Cc: lersek@redhat.com; 'Leif Lindholm (Nuvia address)' > > ; > > > > > Kinney, Michael D ; 'Andrew Fish' > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [edk2-announce] 回复: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community > > page on > > > > > who we are - please review > > > > > > > > > > Jiewen: > > > > > > > > > > Now, we have reviewer and maintainer role. Reviewer takes role 1~4. > > > > > Maintainer takes role 1~7. If the people know edk2 process well, they > > mostly > > > > > know edk2 one or more packages (modules). So, they can take > > Maintainer > > > role. > > > > > If the people only focus on the technical review, they can take reviewer > > > > > role. I would suggest there is at lease one Maintainer for each package. > > > > > There are more reviewers for each package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soumya: > > > > > > > > > > Here are my comments. > > > > > > > > > > Guidelines for a Maintainer. Never let a pending request get older > > than a > > > > > calendar week. This requirement is too strict to the maintainer or > > reviewer. > > > > > The maintainer or reviewer should try to give the response in one week. > > But, > > > > > they may not fully review one patch set in one week, es for the feature > > or > > > > > the complex change. > > > > > > > > > > Role of a Contributor/developer. We need to highlight the role & > > > > > responsibility for the incompatible change. If the contributor proposes > > the > > > > > incompatible change, he needs to coordinate with the impacted platform > > > > > maintainer and make the agreement who will follow up to update the > > > impacted > > > > > platforms before he requests to merge his patch set. The impacted > > platforms > > > > > include all ones in Edk2 and Edk2Platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Last, this page also needs to include release maintainer Definition and > > > > > Role. The release maintainer is to create the quarterly stable tag. He > > takes > > > > > the role to collect the feature planning for each stable tag, schedule the > > > > > release date, and create the stable tag with the release notes on tag > > page. > > > > > He will also send the announcement of soft feature freeze, hard feature > > > > > freeze and the stable tag completement to edk2 community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Liming > > > > > > > > > > 发件人: bounce+27952+65655+4905953+8761045@groups.io > > > > > 代表 Yao, > > Jiewen > > > > > 发送时间: 2020年9月26日 13:33 > > > > > 收件人: devel@edk2.groups.io; Yao, Jiewen ; > > > Guptha, > > > > > Soumya K ; announce@edk2.groups.io > > > > > 主题: Re: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - > > please > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some other thought is about maintainer’s role definition: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The role of a maintainer is to: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Maintainer assignments to packages and source file name patterns > > are > > > > > provided in the " > > > > > > > > Maintainers. > > > > > txt" file. > > > > > 2. Subscribe to the "edk2-bugs" mailing list > > > > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/bugs, which > > > > > propagates TianoCore Bugzilla > > > > > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/ actions via email. Keep a close eye on > > new > > > > > issues reported for their assigned packages. Participate in triaging and > > > > > analyzing bugs filed for their assigned packages. > > > > > 3. Responsible for reviewing patches and answering questions from > > > > > contributors, on the edk2-devel mailing list > > > > > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/. > > > > > 4. Responsible for coordinating patch review with co-maintainers and > > > > > reviewers of the same package. > > > > > 5. Has push / merge access to the merge branch. > > > > > 6. Responsible for merging approved patches into the master branch. > > > > > 7. Follow the EDK II development > > > > > > > Development-Pr > > > > > ocess> process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, the 1~4 need technical expertise, while 5~7 need process > > expertise. > > > > > > > > > > Logically, the can be two separated roles and be done by two different > > > > > persons. > > > > > > > > > > A people who has strong technical expertise might NOT be the best > > person > > > to > > > > > do the integration, and vice versa. I hope we can let right person do right > > > > > thing in right way. > > > > > > > > > > For example, to avoid mistake during check in, 5~7 can be done by a role > > > > > named “integrator”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My dream is that check-in process is just one click button. But it seems > > we > > > > > are still far from it… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > Yao Jiewen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > On Behalf Of > > Yao, > > > > > Jiewen > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 1:09 PM > > > > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io ; Guptha, > > > Soumya K > > > > > >; > > > > > announce@edk2.groups.io > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - > > please > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Soumya. I think this is a good start. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently we are discussing the maintainer’s work in EDKII mailing list, > > > > > with title “more development process failure”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel the process mentioned in > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II- > > > Development-Pro > > > > > cess is not clear enough to follow, especially for the maintainer who is > > not > > > > > full time working on EDKII. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish we can have this opportunity to revisit the “Follow the EDK II > > > > > development > > > > > > > Development-Pr > > > > > ocess> process” and make “the process” simpler and clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then all maintainers can sign to follow one rule. The rule we define and > > the > > > > > rule we agree with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > Yao Jiewen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > On Behalf Of > > > Soumya > > > > > Guptha > > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:35 AM > > > > > To: announce@edk2.groups.io ; > > > > > devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > Subject: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - > > please > > > review > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Community members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have drafted a document “who we are”, explaining Tianocore > > community > > > > > structure, members of the community, their role and the current > > > development > > > > > process. I have drafted this document with the help of the Tianocore > > > > > Stewards. > > > > > > > > > > We view this as a living document, as our development processes evolve, > > I > > > > > will keep this document updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the draft version of the document (link below) and provide > > > > > your feedback. Please send it to me, no need to reply all. > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your input by Friday, Oct 2. After this, I plan on make it live > > > > > on our TianoCore wiki site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: > > https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Who-we-are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Soumya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soumya Guptha > > > > > TianoCore Community Manager > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >