Re: [edk2-devel] Adding Bhyve support into upstream EDK2

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

(This message seems to have broken the threading, so I'll make an
attempt below, to quote the context in a way that I think is logical.)

On 03/10/20 20:23, Michael D Kinney wrote:
> Sean,
>
> This is the reason that OvmfPkg was kept in the edk2 repo so only a
> single repo is required for local dev testing and CI testing.  Same
> reason for the EmulatorPkg.
>
> The current rule for the edk2 repo is common firmware packages and
> virtual/emulated platforms.
> The fact that there has not been bandwidth to implement the CI testing
> for OvmfPkg or EmulatorPkg is not a reasonable reason to remove them.
>
> Mike

On 03/10/20 20:44, Sean via Groups.Io wrote:
> If I look around i don't see that documented.
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2#code-contributions
> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Code-Contributions
> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/How-To-Contribute
> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/How-to-Become-a-Contributor
>
> In Laszlo's massive write up that is very detailed for the
> contribution process there is nothing calling out that the contributor
> must test on any given platform.
> He does however suggest that maybe as a maintainer you should test it
> but again no indication of how/what/where.
> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Laszlo's-unkempt-git-guide-for-edk2-contributors-and-maintainers#maint-13
>
> In all the teams i have worked with over the years no one has used
> OVMF or emulator package as the verification for an edk2 patch.  Maybe
> that is just my experience.
>
> Overall my point is I don't think this is clear to the community and I
> believe that adding this requirement without actually building the
> full infrastructure online will be detrimental to the contribution
> process. And if building the infrastructure online then build it to
> scale to N platforms to cover more of the edk2 community and not just
> those in the edk2 tree.

I remember that "virtual platforms should remain in the tree"
(paraphrased) was part of one of Mike's RFCs for the split-out
repositories (edk2-platforms or similar). I can't find the exact message
now (even though I recall responding to it, with a "thank you"), but I
have found subsequent statements:

* http://mid.mail-archive.com/E92EE9817A31E24EB0585FDF735412F5B8B385D8@ORSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com
  https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/edk2-devel@lists.01.org/message/BG7IWV7SWJCX44T4RFAE36GJNJGBBPRH/

* https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1374#c0
* https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1467#c0
* https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1793#c0

Not claiming that any of these are official documentation, it's just
illustration that it has been "operating knowledge / agreement" for
many.

Thanks
Laszlo