Re: Functionality issues in UDF support

["Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>]

Hi Laszlo and Ruiyu
I can think 1 possible alternative, for your consideration only.

1)       Move the feature to OvmfPkg.

As such, it won't block us at this moment.

Once the UDF solution has good quality, we can move it back to MdeModulePkg.

Thank you
Yao Jiewen

From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 12:51 AM
To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Paulo Alcantara <pcacjr@zytor.com>
Cc: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2] Functionality issues in UDF support

On 09/15/17 18:40, Ni, Ruiyu wrote:
> Laszlo,
> Please do not add a PCD for this. Too many PCDs are no good to the project.

I understand that new MdeModulePkg PCDs are not liked, but what do you
propose instead? If we simply revert the PartitionDxe changes, then
people that want to experiment with general UDF support under OVMF won't
be able to do that at all.

I'm in the process of adding -D UDF_ENABLE to OvmfPkg, ArmVirtPkg, and
Nt32Pkg, which would control both the FeaturePCD and the inclusion of
UdfDxe in the build. If you disagree with the FeaturePCD, I can stop
working on this, but I don't know what the alternative is. "Fix it
immediately" is not an alternative; we can't do that. If you want to
revert the change, it's your prerogative, but that will prevent
everybody from testing gradual UDF improvements. (No 3rd parties build
OVMF from any staging branches, so if the feature is only available on a
staging branch, it might as well not exist, for the outside world.)

Thanks
Laszlo