Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)

["Leif Lindholm" <leif@nuviainc.com>]

Makes sense. Let's go with the branch.

Mike: yes, that was what I was suggesting wrt cherry-picking and pushing.

Best Regards,

Leif

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 19:06:21 +0000, Bret Barkelew wrote:
> FWIW, we tried both branches and tags in Mu, and have gotten more
> mileage out of branches. We will still do tags periodically (to
> establish a point at which all the sub repos were put through a full
> validation run), but our platform consumers have shown a preference
> for just living on the stabilized branch.
> 
> - Bret
> 
> From: Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:57 AM
> To: rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; leif@nuviainc.com<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn<mailto:gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Andrew Fish (afish@apple.com)<mailto:afish@apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> (lersek@redhat.com)<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>; Sean Brogan<mailto:sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
> 
> Hi Leif,
> 
> I think you are suggesting that a local branch could be created from edk2-stable202011 and the
> 2 commits cherry-picked onto that local branch and then create a tag on that local branch and
> only push the new tag to edk2 repo (e.g. edk2-stable202011.01).  Correct?
> 
> I think with this approach, we would wait for the community to request a new stable dot tag
> (e.g. edk2-stable202011.01) with a specific set of commits.
> 
> Another advantage of branch vs tag is that platforms that want to always use an edk2-stable*
> tag with all the known critical bug fixes can pull the branch to get the latest fixes.  Or select
> a tag on the branch or a specific sha on the branch based on their platform requirements.  If
> a platform has to wait for a new stable dot tag then the platform can not test with those critical
> fixes directly from the edk2 repo.  They would have to create their own downstream.
> 
> I think between the CI use case and this downstream platform use case, a branch has more
> advantages than a tag.
> 
> I am fine with removing the redundant use of 'stable' and 'edk2' in the branch naming proposal.
> 
>     Proposal: stable/*
>     Example:  stable/202011
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:17 AM
> > To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io; gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn; Andrew Fish (afish@apple.com) <afish@apple.com>;
> > Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> (lersek@redhat.com) <lersek@redhat.com>; 'Sean Brogan' <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; 'Bret
> > Barkelew' <Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > This looks fine to me.
> > I will add a potential tweak that I won't strongly advocate for, but
> > think should be considered:
> > We don't technically need a branch for this; a tag could be pushed
> > directly.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 16:53:09 +0000, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The following bug has been fixed on edk2/master
> > >
> > >     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D3111&amp;data=04%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C36133f4be9b24fbec5ca08d8a12b4024%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637436554422046735%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=EZCqLKBAXKgq8J40GFynYtqYIyhUpU7MIlT7wT4Cs9w%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fpull%2F1226&amp;data=04%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C36133f4be9b24fbec5ca08d8a12b4024%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637436554422056729%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=pQG7sjlHRxwh5mugH3vNKoZt88b%2BD7W4YHspsdb%2BQZ8%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >
> > > This bug is also considered a critical bug against edk2-stable202011.  The behavior
> > > of the Variable Lock Protocol was changed in a non-backwards compatible manner in
> > > edk2-stable202011 and this is impacting some downstream platforms.  The following
> > > 2 commits on edk2/master restore the original behavior of the Variable Lock Protocol.
> > >
> > >     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fpull%2F1226%2Fcommits%2F893cfe2847b83da74f53858d6acaa15a348bad7c&amp;data=04%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C36133f4be9b24fbec5ca08d8a12b4024%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637436554422056729%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=RiNVhyT3fmoVRtLP0fJqbuP1Ow26tDM31J1O6%2B01wMs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >     https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fpull%2F1226%2Fcommits%2F16491ba6a6e9a91cedeeed45bc0fbdfde49f7968&amp;data=04%7C01%7CBret.Barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C36133f4be9b24fbec5ca08d8a12b4024%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637436554422056729%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=DpZO7U2yoqD%2BK%2F6OxIZoI%2FbIDMbtRr7UBMCBl9PxGkQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >
> > > The request here is to create a supported branch from edk2-stable202011 tag and apply
> > > these 2 commits as critical bug fixes on the supported branch.
> > >
> > > Since we started using the edk2-stable* tag process, there has not been a request to create
> > > a supported branch from one of those tags.  As a result, there are a couple opens that
> > > need to be addressed:
> > >
> > > 1) Supported branch naming convention.
> > >
> > >     Proposal: stable/edk2-stable*
> > >     Example:  stable/edk2-stable202011
> >
> > For the bikeshedding part, if we're doing the branches, I support
> > using the stable/ prefix, but I also think this obviates the need to
> > include the word stable in the portion after /.
> > Since branches unlike tags don't have global namespace, I also think
> > there is no need for the edk2 portion of the name.
> > So an example branch name could be:
> >   stable/202011
> >
> > > 2) CI requirements for supported branches.
> > >
> > >     Proposal: Update .azurepipelines yml files to also trigger on stable/* branches
> > >     and update GitHub settings so stable/* branches are protected branches.
> >
> > This would of course mandate the use of branches.
> >
> > > 3) Release requirements for supported branches.
> > >
> > >    Proposal: If there are a significant number of critical fixes applied to
> > >    a stable/edk2-stable* branch, then a request for a release can be made that
> > >    would trigger focused testing of the supported branch and creation of a new
> > >    release.  If all testing passes, then a tag is created on the stable/edk2-stable*
> > >    branch and a release is created on GitHub that summarizes the set of critical
> > >    fixes and the testing performed.
> > >
> > >    Proposal: edk2-stable<YYYY><MM>.<XX>
> > >    Example : edk2-stable201111.01
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Leif
> >
> > > Please let me know if you have any feedback or comments on this proposal.  The goal
> > > is to close on this topic this week.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>