From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by groups.io with SMTP; Thu, 23 May 2019 04:45:01 -0700 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8F63087955; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-6.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.6]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B415D9D2; Thu, 23 May 2019 11:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2] Soft Feature Freeze starts today for edk2-stable201905 To: "Gao, Liming" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" Cc: "Kinney, Michael D" , "Cetola, Stephano" , Andrew Fish , Leif Lindholm References: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E44C967@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E44FA00@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> <2dc9afe8-3f0f-fe87-cb8f-13aa18f9426b@redhat.com> <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E44FFCE@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <2bc0355b-fcf0-3f02-d8b9-8e4faf490a10@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 13:44:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A89E2EF3DFEDB4C8BFDE51014F606A14E44FFCE@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.45]); Thu, 23 May 2019 11:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/23/19 07:58, Gao, Liming wrote: > Laszlo: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of >> Laszlo Ersek >> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:05 PM >> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Gao, Liming >> Cc: Kinney, Michael D ; Cetola, Stephano >> ; Andrew Fish ; Leif >> Lindholm >> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2] Soft Feature Freeze starts today for edk2- >> stable201905 >> >> On 05/22/19 14:09, Liming Gao wrote: >> >>> Here, I don't want to argue whether they are feature or bug. I just >>> want to share my thinking, and collect feedback, then work out the >>> clear rule so that all developers can follow. >> >> Good question. Assume we push a series that adds a feature, but then we >> realize it was not complete. Do we consider the rest of the work feature >> enablement, or bugfix for an earlier (already existing) feature? >> > > Now, I have one case BaseTools: Update Conf/target.template to remove Nt32Pkg/Nt32Pkg.dsc. > https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/41155?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,EmulatorPkg,20,2,0,31697760 > Nt32Pkg has been removed. BaseTools/Conf/target.template should be updatd. So, > I send this patch for it. I regard it as the bug, and plan to push it for this release. > >> Maybe it helps if we try to determine the scope of the feature >> precisely, up-front, in the BZ. If a patch falls under that scope (and >> under nothing else, e.g. it is not a standalone fix for another bug in >> its own right), then we could consider it "feature addition / >> enablement". >> >> In that regard, the ShellPkg & EmulatorPkg patches would be feature >> enablement, not bug fixes. >> >> But I'm worried that this approach would only push the problem to a >> different location, namely, to determining the scope as precisely as >> possible in the TianoCore BZ. Sometimes we don't know that a module or >> package is affected in the scope, until we try something in practice. >> > > I agree. I think this is hard to be followed. I would like to propose > the simple rule for the patches in Soft Feature Freeze and Hard Feature Freeze. > If the patch has not got R-B before Soft Feature Freeze, the patch wants > to catch the release. The patch must get the approve from at least one Stewards. > The patch needs to be sent to all Stewards and claim it to be added in the release. Understood -- I think we should discuss this at the next stewards' meeting. Thanks, Laszlo >> Laszlo >> >> >