From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web08.1188.1610137224034524514 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 12:20:24 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=GkiAz6iP; spf=none, err=SPF record not found (domain: bsdio.com, ip: 166.70.13.231, 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:References:Reply-To:Cc:To:From:Sender: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=/KBUKyhY7q3VPkVFfDWE4BaJhu4gWjh8bOEFC3E6IqI=; b=GkiAz6iP4wd0p/kMUka4YRxYvA ve/xzSQMCtVgFR5jpAsgS6ZEdl6v4ul+4IDnTA8U3Z3Hit+AbMVsdto8ogV2VVhsD+lDn/+Ii4rXe XTyteXOyoeRCnDGgUZfEuup42TyDM4zSP20Fu/vBznOaxzLnX0iXP9trXvCMTkxK8Asg=; Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kxyFC-001SQ9-Ib; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 13:20:22 -0700 Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.69]) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kxyFA-00E6zD-N9; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 13:20:22 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F8F128110E; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 13:20:20 -0700 (MST) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta5.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta5.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 04z1DOG7nLtx; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 13:20:20 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.0.10.142] (c-174-52-16-57.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [174.52.16.57]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07BDC12809BF; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 13:20:20 -0700 (MST) From: "Rebecca Cran" To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io, spbrogan@outlook.com, bob.c.feng@intel.com, Jordan Justen , Andrew Fish , Ray Ni , Michael Kinney Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io, rebecca@bsdio.com References: <20fb818b-ddb2-54ee-50b1-c22baa878bed@redhat.com> <1658569DBC96D253.25961@groups.io> Message-ID: <9f9d69b7-7d57-3cd3-b4ca-417d3120c494@bsdio.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 13:20:19 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1658569DBC96D253.25961@groups.io> X-XM-SPF: eid=1kxyFA-00E6zD-N9;;;mid=<9f9d69b7-7d57-3cd3-b4ca-417d3120c494@bsdio.com>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.69;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=none X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.69 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=2.5 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,NICE_REPLY_A,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_TooManySym_01, T_TooManySym_02,XMNoVowels,XMSubLong,XM_B_Unicode,XM_B_Unsub 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: 0.5000] * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 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 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * 0.5 XM_B_Unsub Unsubscribe in body of email but missing unsubscribe * header * -0.0 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: **;Laszlo Ersek X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 1171 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.03 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 10 (0.9%), b_tie_ro: 9 (0.8%), parse: 1.08 (0.1%), extract_message_metadata: 19 (1.6%), get_uri_detail_list: 3.5 (0.3%), tests_pri_-1000: 18 (1.6%), tests_pri_-950: 1.46 (0.1%), tests_pri_-900: 1.22 (0.1%), tests_pri_-90: 511 (43.6%), check_bayes: 500 (42.7%), b_tokenize: 12 (1.0%), b_tok_get_all: 10 (0.9%), b_comp_prob: 4.2 (0.4%), b_tok_touch_all: 469 (40.1%), b_finish: 1.03 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 592 (50.5%), check_dkim_signature: 0.83 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 35 (3.0%), poll_dns_idle: 33 (2.8%), tests_pri_10: 2.2 (0.2%), tests_pri_500: 12 (1.1%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 1/1] EmulatorPkg/PlatformCI: stick with "ubuntu-18.04" for now X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Well, at least Github have said they will only support LTS versions, so we'll only run into problems every couple of years with ubuntu-latest. -- Rebecca Cran On 1/8/21 11:54 AM, Rebecca Cran wrote: > Given they still support Ubuntu 16.04 > (https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments > ), I suspect 18.04 will > be supported until the upstream EOL in 2023. > > — > Rebeca Cran > >> On Jan 8, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >> On 01/08/21 19:14, Rebecca Cran wrote: >>> On 1/8/21 11:01 AM, Sean wrote: >>> >>>> Question to the community (especially those using a Linux environment) >>>> is what priority should it be to go resolve these and update CI to run >>>> on Ubuntu 20.04?  General premise is we should stay current without >>>> being bleeding edge but I want to understand other perspectives. >>> >>> From previous discussions, it sounds like we did want to be on the >>> bleeding edge - which I personally think is a bad idea, since breaking >>> changes can come in at the worst time. >>> >>> Instead, we should stay on a stable release but watch out for newer >>> versions and move forward to them after applying any fixes. >>> >> >> I'm all for sticking with stable artifacts, but: >> >> - we don't know *how long* the github.com/actions organization intends >> to support the 18.04 LTS image >> >> - the breakage with 20.04 LTS indeed hit us at a bad time, but at least >> we had something to fall back to. If we switch to the oldest supported >> VM image, as a permanent choice, then, when that image loses support, >> we'll only be able to escape *forward* -- and *that* is an even worse >> experience. >> >> It's always the same problem -- production users always want *someone >> else* to test out the new release for them. >> >> Instead, what I would really welcome here is if we exempted edk2 patches >> that tweaked the CI configuration from the usual patch review process. >> Delaying an actual edk2 patch because its review is not complete -- >> that's fine, that's how development works. On the other hand, blocking >> the *merging* of an otherwise reviewed patch, just because the CI system >> is broken again, is an *outrage*. Having to submit *further patches to >> review* -- this time for the CI config itself --, in order to mitigate >> the CI breakage, is a completely broken workflow. >> >> Laszlo >> > > > > >