From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.9578.1589451868198847741 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 03:24:28 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=UGt78EHc; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 205.139.110.61, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1589451867; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=djbHd9bf9urp2MCGOU1133Xu0mIO0QPn/tsgamaaxXA=; b=UGt78EHcv54UbBoJVq+KbaDxfvQ4HUIo/tUEFVzV6NK8a0r6TB/ZyK4tSuWZDeUWZj5iEG QthV3EU1ov10gHRk0AEa4WR4don2x0wUL/8tt9kVcB9hHzKDMLr74EmGbuoZ3XDT0Wj3iw VObyUapypZlv0vhwXOqm5ZFvFIdCGqY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-478-im5EUETOMCS4-XX8ZG1F7w-1; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:24:23 -0400 X-MC-Unique: im5EUETOMCS4-XX8ZG1F7w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA7816DACE; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-179.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.179]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282B412A4D; Thu, 14 May 2020 10:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Where to put the bhyve code in the edk2 repo: BhyvePkg, or under OvmfPkg? To: Rebecca Cran , devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Andrew Fish , Leif Lindholm , "Justen, Jordan L" , Peter Grehan References: <20CE2FEE-3844-422E-8DB2-2784C9B56CE9@bsdio.com> <2de7aa2e-a024-3c2b-14c0-161e68c31121@redhat.com> <764a2a86-6d80-9784-6793-e2a0cfe0a155@bsdio.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <58b768dc-cad7-08e5-2fe6-ba3e81002097@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 12:24:08 +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: <764a2a86-6d80-9784-6793-e2a0cfe0a155@bsdio.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/14/20 04:34, Rebecca Cran wrote: > (cc Peter Grehan) > > On 5/12/20 3:28 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> >> If the bhyve community can *permanently* provide reviews / >> regression-testing for such OVMF contributors that never use bhyve, that >> would significantly increase the stability of bhyve firmware code, and >> it would outweigh bhyve's user base (likely) being smaller. Xen >> regressions were also reduced when the Xen community finally delegated >> designated reviewers to edk2. >> >> Reviewing and testing patches you don't really care for, but see as >> possibly regressive for the platform you do care about, is a *lot* of >> work. So I guess it could boil down to how much work your platform's >> user base can contribute to the edk2 project. > > I certainly can't commit to reviewing and manually regression-testing > all applicable OVMF patches, since I'm doing this on a volunteer basis > and I know there will be days/weeks when my attention shifts elsewhere. > > The best I could do is provide semi-regular testing and integration > perhaps every month, and make available a permanent FreeBSD machine that > any contributors/maintainers could remote into in order to do their own > testing - in addition to providing integration into the CI system once > .NET and Azure Agent support has been fixed on FreeBSD. - Adding FreeBSD to CI (which I think was proposed by Ard too) sounds great. - The community not having any human resources permanently dedicated to bhyve regressions (testing, review, and post factum fixing) is fine, as long as the bhyve stakeholders can live with a matching frequency of regressions. Thanks, Laszlo