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; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 01:51:43 -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 641F130ADC82;
	Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-117-52.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.52])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD375D9CC;
	Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:51:41 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v4 1/6] edksetup.sh: Use bash variable $PWD instead of executing pwd command
To: devel@edk2.groups.io, rebecca@bsdio.com, bob.c.feng@intel.com,
 liming.gao@intel.com, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, afish@apple.com,
 zhijux.fan@intel.com, leif.lindholm@linaro.org
References: <20190716165538.57960-1-rebecca@bsdio.com>
 <19dbcb9a-bb46-2d42-a668-68a31182c1ca@redhat.com>
 <343a4834-3f87-fdfd-8e73-a5819549380e@bsdio.com>
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <307ab500-3248-0abd-4298-bc07821b5d41@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:51:40 +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: <343a4834-3f87-fdfd-8e73-a5819549380e@bsdio.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 [10.5.110.47]); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07/23/19 00:52, rebecca@bsdio.com wrote:
> On 2019-07-22 16:16, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>> should we push patches #1 through #4 from this series?
>>
>> They are independent of python detection (which is still being discussed).
> 
> 
> I think that's a good idea.

Pushed patches #1 through #4 as commit range f6f1e0b7c292..cf2d8d4978e8.

Thanks,
Laszlo