Re: [edk2-announce] Soft Feature Freeze starts today for edk2-stable201903

["Gao, Liming" <liming.gao@intel.com>]

Lazlo:
  I agree. I don't think there is the rule break for the patch set of boot progress reporting. I also prefer to push them early next week. 

Thanks
Liming
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 4:20 AM
> To: Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [edk2-announce] Soft Feature Freeze starts today for edk2-stable201903
> 
> Hi Liming,
> 
> On 02/22/19 15:25, Gao, Liming wrote:
> > Hi, all
> >   https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-Release-Planning lists edk2-stable201903 tag planning. Now, we enter
> into Soft Feature Freeze phase. In this phase, the feature without Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags will be delayed after the upcoming stable
> tag. The patch review can continue without break. Below is edk2-stable201903 tag planning.
> >
> > 2019-03-08 Beginning of development
> > 2019-02-22 Soft Feature Freeze
> > 2019-03-01 Hard Feature Freeze
> > 2019-03-08 Release
> 
> I got the last missing R-b from Ray for my patch set
> 
> [edk2] [PATCH v3 0/5] MdeModulePkg, OvmfPkg, ArmVirtPkg: more visible
> boot progress reporting
> 
> today (2019-02-22) at 12:50 in my time zone (CET = UTC+01:00). Before
> pushing the series, I asked Ray to confirm one last thing about his
> review. I consider the series properly reviewed, but due to this last
> question, I expect I should push it early next week.
> 
> IMO that satisfies the soft feature freeze definition:
> 
> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/SoftFeatureFreeze
> 
> "By the date of the soft feature freeze, developers must have sent their
> patches to the mailing list and received positive maintainer reviews
> (Reviewed-by or Acked-by tags). [...] Between the soft feature freeze
> and the hard feature freeze, previously reviewed and unit-tested
> features may be applied (or merged) to the master branch, for
> integration testing."
> 
> Do you (and others) agree?
> 
> If not, I won't insist -- while I'd certainly prefer these patches to be
> in the upcoming stable tag, if the community perceives it would mean
> bending the rules, I wouldn't want to do that. (Right now I don't think
> it would bend the rules).
> 
> Thanks,
> Laszlo