From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com (out03.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.233]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.1923.1589492803555023242 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 14:46:43 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=m2yKGizG; spf=pass (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.233, mailfrom: rebecca@bsdio.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=bsdio.com; s=xmission; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=tK6ghM4gLfi1Y7vxzUUKpgBTYGQ9Fwdi6M9JVmM4Pb4=; b=m2yKGizGAvFkLE/8hTpzLgqpqn i8qtxLMPWiZ7e0FDzSxXSQSenBrV+I0PKI4d1ZVAPbAdJDpSWc1ee4HLmCXKcuGbEpzFMDlS7SMuX HYM7BsKW2C4+FOEHEl9tlL5ML9v3kRrODgtxilP1aHQVVkenHUhVhGVjGxVpjqhvAAWY=; Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZLgg-0004Xf-4S; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:46:42 -0600 Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.68]) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1jZLgb-0006ZJ-0o; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:46:41 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD965005D2; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:46:36 -0600 (MDT) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta4.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta4.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta4.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id WnKLd-mzhLX9; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:46:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.10.120] (muon.bluestop.org [65.103.231.193]) by mta4.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E80D500458; Thu, 14 May 2020 15:46:36 -0600 (MDT) To: rfc@edk2.groups.io, bret.barkelew@microsoft.com, "Kinney, Michael D" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "lersek@redhat.com" References: <8389d6a6-aaf5-3c0e-904f-84f814c9d385@redhat.com> From: "Rebecca Cran" Message-ID: <812843fa-36ad-6ef3-42e1-8ec2a3c3e42d@bsdio.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:46:35 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-XM-SPF: eid=1jZLgb-0006ZJ-0o;;;mid=<812843fa-36ad-6ef3-42e1-8ec2a3c3e42d@bsdio.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.68;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=pass X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa06.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,TooManyTo_001,TooManyTo_002, TooManyTo_003,TooManyTo_004,TooManyTo_005,XMSubLong,XM_B_Unicode autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5079] * 0.5 TooManyTo_002 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 3x (uncommon) * 0.3 TooManyTo_001 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 2x (uncommon) * 0.5 TooManyTo_004 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 5x (uncommon) * 0.4 TooManyTo_005 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 6x (uncommon) * 0.6 TooManyTo_003 Multiple "To" Header Recipients 4x (uncommon) * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 XM_B_Unicode BODY: Testing for specific types of unicode * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 0; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: ; sa06 0; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: **;rfc@edk2.groups.io, bret.barkelew@microsoft.com, "Kinney, Michael D" , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "lersek@redhat.com" X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 4811 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.09 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 11 (0.2%), b_tie_ro: 10 (0.2%), parse: 1.02 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 12 (0.3%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.87 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 10 (0.2%), tests_pri_-950: 1.33 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.02 (0.0%), tests_pri_-90: 139 (2.9%), check_bayes: 136 (2.8%), b_tokenize: 9 (0.2%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 3.3 (0.1%), b_tok_touch_all: 114 (2.4%), b_finish: 1.08 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 319 (6.6%), check_dkim_signature: 0.81 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 113 (2.3%), poll_dns_idle: 4409 (91.7%), tests_pri_10: 2.0 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 4311 (89.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] GitHub Pull Request based Code Review Process X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US On 5/14/20 3:26 PM, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote: > I feel like this process is a good compromise. It’s not perfect (frankly, I’m a fan of enforced squash merges, which can maintain bisectability if managed well), but it allows for rapid iteration, ease of contribution, and approaches the workflow that many who have never used email to maintain a project would be familiar with. > > It’s code management for the Instagram generation, and I for one welcome our new insect overlords. Or at least, that's what Microsoft is betting on! :D Personally, I remain unconvinced about the usability of Github Pull Requests for a project the size of EDK2, but I hope to be proven wrong. -- Rebecca Cran