Re: [edk2-devel] RFC for Edk2-ToolEnv

["Sean" <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>]

Yes the plan would be to support both CI and local builds.  There is actually more features related to support platform builds so I think it would be better to keep ci out of the name.  The reason why Tool-Env was suggested is the modules can be used to run anything within the python environment not just builds.  We have a git submodule update tool, external dependency management tool (package mgmt/binary files), platform build tool, and CI build tool.  

Look at https://github.com/microsoft/mu_pip_environment and https://github.com/microsoft/mu_pip_build to get an idea of the content proposed.  

Thanks
Sean



-----Original Message-----
From: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:39 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rebecca@bluestop.org; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] RFC for Edk2-ToolEnv

Hi Sean,

Does the PIP module here support both local platform builds and CI builds?

I am looking at the name of the repo and trying to align with the edk2-tools-library repo name so it is obvious the two repos are related.  Maybe focus on the CI part for the name and we reuse the CI features to simplify local builds.

	edk2-tools-ci

Finalizing the name is the only open I am aware of.

Thanks,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of 
> rebecca@bluestop.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:34 PM
> To: Sean <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>;
> devel@edk2.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] RFC for Edk2-ToolEnv
> 
> On 2019-05-14 17:23, sean.brogan via groups.io wrote:
> > Take a look at the proposed content and how it is
> used.  We even have
> > examples of calling from DevOps and i don't think
> Jenkins would be any
> > different.  I don't think we are trying to duplicate CI 
> > functionality.  We are providing the "last mile" so
> that those CI
> > engines can run EDK specific tests and tools.  Standard
> CI engines
> > have no concept of packages, DSC, FDF, INFs, firmware,
> etc.
> 
> 
> Okay, that's great. Of course we do also have lots of code running on 
> the CI server at work, not the client, that does things like packaging 
> etc., and this proposal will include server-side code too.
> 
> Also, I don't think there is anything that'll be as nicely integrated 
> as this, so I'm happy with it.
> 
> 
> --
> Rebecca Cran
> 
> 
>