Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Ovmf: Set matching PCI routing values in PIIX4

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

On 12/15/20 00:48, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 19:58 +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Mail-archive.com used to be a good secondary archive, with threading and
>> message-id-based search; but it stopped getting a feed for some reason,
>> and I failed to rectify it (I reached out to multiple people and nobody
>> responded).
>>
>> I also run a secondary archive at
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/
>>
>> but it doesn't go back beyond "2019-April", plus it doesn't have
>> msgid-based search. But, at least, it's mailman2 :)
> 
> Some years ago I fixed Mailman's web archives to contain mailto: links
> with a proper &in-reply-to= in the URI, such that using it to reply got
> the threading right.
> 
> Your archive doesn't seem to have the links at all though.

TBH I'm happy this facility still exists at RH at all (i.e. that we can
request and run our own mailing lists) :)

> I seem to recall this is only necessary because groups.io does
> something weird and *mangles* the Message-ID so that the one we receive
> directly is different and all the threading is screwed anyway?

No, the threading is generally OK.

Groups.io has a profile-level option that basically means

  I have a gmail.com account, which forcefully de-duplicates messages,
  but I really want two separate copies of what *I* send to the list, so
  please falsify the message-id's on my messages delivered back to me.

The option is not called exactly that, of course. So yes, it can break
threading for the affected person, but it's not the general case.

So anyway, I run this secondary archive because the 01.org admins had
killed the original list archive that used to live their, despite their
express promise. The archive was deleted in two stages actually; first
they just replaced Mailman2 with Mailman3, which broke all the links of
course, but then they removed the edk2-devel archive altogether.

> 
>> Regarding the R-b, thanks for that; I've just asked for a v2 -- the code
>> is correct IMO, but I'd like to receive a more extensive commit message,
>> plus some extra comments in the code.
> 
> Ack.
> 

Thanks!
Laszlo