Packages Missing CI YAML Files

Packages Missing CI YAML Files

[Michael Kubacki]

Hello Package Maintainers & Reviewers,

Is it intentional that these packages do not have a .ci.yaml file?

   1. EmbeddedPkg
   2. IntelFsp2Pkg
   3. IntelFsp2WrapperPkg
   4. SignedCapsulePkg
   5. SourceLevelDebugPkg

This impacts CI running against these packages.

Regards,
Michael

Re: Packages Missing CI YAML Files

[Ard Biesheuvel]

Hello Michael,

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 00:28, Michael Kubacki
<mikuback@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Package Maintainers & Reviewers,
>
> Is it intentional that these packages do not have a .ci.yaml file?
>
>    1. EmbeddedPkg
>    2. IntelFsp2Pkg
>    3. IntelFsp2WrapperPkg
>    4. SignedCapsulePkg
>    5. SourceLevelDebugPkg
>
> This impacts CI running against these packages.
>

I'm not sure what you mean with 'intentional'. Originally, no packages
had .ci.yaml files, and over time, they were contributed for most of
the packages.

If anyone wants to contribute .ci.yaml files for these packages as
well, I would not object, so I guess it is not intentional in that
sense, as far as I am concerned. But if the policy today is that all
packages must have .ci.yaml files, I'm not sure who is on the hook to
realize that.

-- 
Ard.

Re: [edk2-devel] Packages Missing CI YAML Files

[Michael Kubacki]

I meant are the maintainers aware that their package does not have a 
.ci.yaml file and they have intentionally made the decision to not 
include the file.

Different packages are in different states. Some package maintainers 
have explicitly chosen to comment out various plugins, put others in 
audit mode, etc. It could also be decided to not have the file at all. 
I'm also not sure who is responsible for ensuring whether all packages 
have the file.

On 8/1/2022 6:41 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Hello Michael,
> 
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 00:28, Michael Kubacki
> <mikuback@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Package Maintainers & Reviewers,
>>
>> Is it intentional that these packages do not have a .ci.yaml file?
>>
>>     1. EmbeddedPkg
>>     2. IntelFsp2Pkg
>>     3. IntelFsp2WrapperPkg
>>     4. SignedCapsulePkg
>>     5. SourceLevelDebugPkg
>>
>> This impacts CI running against these packages.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean with 'intentional'. Originally, no packages
> had .ci.yaml files, and over time, they were contributed for most of
> the packages.
> 
> If anyone wants to contribute .ci.yaml files for these packages as
> well, I would not object, so I guess it is not intentional in that
> sense, as far as I am concerned. But if the policy today is that all
> packages must have .ci.yaml files, I'm not sure who is on the hook to
> realize that.
>