Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg

Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg

[Sean]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1583 bytes --]

I support somewhere other than edk2 core.

I would offer a third option to think about; create a new tianocore repo.  For optional features or features that don't have broad community adoption it would allow for those downstream consumers to easily pick and chose their consumption.  It also helps avoid "core" features becoming entangled or dependent on an optional features.  Current UiApp would be another great example.

Just my opinion.

Thanks
Sean


From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Abner Chang via groups.io
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 8:08 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wang, Nickle (HPS SW) <nickle.wang@hpe.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg

Hi edk2 community members,
Per to the short discussion with Mike and Ray, we would like to know your opinions regard to which edk2 repo to accommodate  RedfishPkg, edk2/RedfshPkg or edk2-platforms/Features/RedfishPkg?
The current direction of edk2 open source is going to reduce the size and some features were moved to edk2-platform already (e.g. edk2-platforms/Features/Intel).
Although RedfishPkg is a FW core feature however not all of systems require this. For example, most of client systems don't need Redfish for the out of band management so far, maybe  later.
My current idea is put RedfishPkg under edk2-platforms/Features, however I am also fine with having this package to under edk2 repo.
What is your opinion? edk2 or edk2-platforms?

Thanks
Abner



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4400 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg

[Bret Barkelew]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2355 bytes --]

Agreed. I’d like to see edk2 Core, edk2 Optional, and edk2 Platform. I think that’s an appropriate division that helps address some of the placement and dependency concerns a number of us (not just MS 😊) have identified.

- Bret
________________________________
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Sean via groups.io <sean.brogan=microsoft.com@groups.io>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:20:48 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; abner.chang@hpe.com <abner.chang@hpe.com>
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wang, Nickle (HPS SW) <nickle.wang@hpe.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg


I support somewhere other than edk2 core.



I would offer a third option to think about; create a new tianocore repo.  For optional features or features that don’t have broad community adoption it would allow for those downstream consumers to easily pick and chose their consumption.  It also helps avoid “core” features becoming entangled or dependent on an optional features.  Current UiApp would be another great example.



Just my opinion.



Thanks

Sean





From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Abner Chang via groups.io
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 8:08 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wang, Nickle (HPS SW) <nickle.wang@hpe.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg



Hi edk2 community members,

Per to the short discussion with Mike and Ray, we would like to know your opinions regard to which edk2 repo to accommodate  RedfishPkg, edk2/RedfshPkg or edk2-platforms/Features/RedfishPkg?

The current direction of edk2 open source is going to reduce the size and some features were moved to edk2-platform already (e.g. edk2-platforms/Features/Intel).

Although RedfishPkg is a FW core feature however not all of systems require this. For example, most of client systems don’t need Redfish for the out of band management so far, maybe  later.

My current idea is put RedfishPkg under edk2-platforms/Features, however I am also fine with having this package to under edk2 repo.

What is your opinion? edk2 or edk2-platforms?



Thanks

Abner





[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4365 bytes --]

Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg

[Ni, Ray]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3523 bytes --]

Sean, Bret,
Cross platform features for Intel platforms are supposed to put under edk2-platforms/Features/Intel.
These features are optional to a platform.

Then why cannot Redfish components be placed in edk2-platforms/Features/Intel or edk2-platforms/Features/Common?

Thanks,
Ray

From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:25 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; abner.chang@hpe.com
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Wang, Nickle (HPS SW) <nickle.wang@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg

Agreed. I’d like to see edk2 Core, edk2 Optional, and edk2 Platform. I think that’s an appropriate division that helps address some of the placement and dependency concerns a number of us (not just MS 😊) have identified.

- Bret
________________________________
From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> on behalf of Sean via groups.io <sean.brogan=microsoft.com@groups.io<mailto:sean.brogan=microsoft.com@groups.io>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:20:48 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>>; abner.chang@hpe.com<mailto:abner.chang@hpe.com> <abner.chang@hpe.com<mailto:abner.chang@hpe.com>>
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com<mailto:ray.ni@intel.com>>; Wang, Nickle (HPS SW) <nickle.wang@hpe.com<mailto:nickle.wang@hpe.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg


I support somewhere other than edk2 core.



I would offer a third option to think about; create a new tianocore repo.  For optional features or features that don’t have broad community adoption it would allow for those downstream consumers to easily pick and chose their consumption.  It also helps avoid “core” features becoming entangled or dependent on an optional features.  Current UiApp would be another great example.



Just my opinion.



Thanks

Sean





From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> <devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Abner Chang via groups.io
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 8:08 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com<mailto:ray.ni@intel.com>>; Wang, Nickle (HPS SW) <nickle.wang@hpe.com<mailto:nickle.wang@hpe.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-devel] edk2 repo for RedfishPkg



Hi edk2 community members,

Per to the short discussion with Mike and Ray, we would like to know your opinions regard to which edk2 repo to accommodate  RedfishPkg, edk2/RedfshPkg or edk2-platforms/Features/RedfishPkg?

The current direction of edk2 open source is going to reduce the size and some features were moved to edk2-platform already (e.g. edk2-platforms/Features/Intel).

Although RedfishPkg is a FW core feature however not all of systems require this. For example, most of client systems don’t need Redfish for the out of band management so far, maybe  later.

My current idea is put RedfishPkg under edk2-platforms/Features, however I am also fine with having this package to under edk2 repo.

What is your opinion? edk2 or edk2-platforms?



Thanks

Abner




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8980 bytes --]