From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.3404.1603187585681226496 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:53:05 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=J57gmuBH; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 216.205.24.124, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1603187584; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ap/5qS5OTSDIRUFj1+u/1DXLmAHsbsUmpn1CbsSpLQE=; b=J57gmuBHmfzJnvEGzv5/GXttuviDQc1lA9jZbPX4B9O69aZQmTcXF3BAM2rUQtB9PWKlzu ZJedhGRkh7LiKcpwAYULFci/Sxp72rm6h9qbchjaZE38ieduXIBEhI4eV9VVMbD1Mia7Sd 0+W/K33shxqjwC1gxxv3d40aYvDITrU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-43-m0cZ4p_gPva6mgTDuajL-g-1; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 05:53:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: m0cZ4p_gPva6mgTDuajL-g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75BF818A8222; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-114-240.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.240]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3EA6EF7D; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/PartitionDxe: Revert the child handler blocksize change To: devel@edk2.groups.io, ray.ni@intel.com, "Gao, Zhichao" , "glin@suse.com" Cc: "Wu, Hao A" , Michael Kinney , Tom Lendacky References: <20201012072230.46152-1-zhichao.gao@intel.com> <4f20aa01-793a-8477-53c1-56a5899caa14@redhat.com> <20201016064205.GI19552@GaryWorkstation> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:52:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ray, On 10/19/20 07:56, Ni, Ray wrote: > Zhichao, > Can you please update the commit message to address Laszlo's comments? why did you merge ? PR#1033 was originally submitted as a personal build for Zhichao. When it passed CI (and was auto-closed), Zhichao should have posted the updated patch (with the cleaned up commit message) as v2 to the mailing list, for the next round of review. Instead, you reopened the (auto-closed) PR, added the push label, and the mergify bot merged the patch. You merged a patch that was not reviewed on the list; specifically you didn't give me any chance to re-check the commit message, after I pointed out problems with it under the v1 thread. Of course, sometimes we (participants in a patch review thread) agree that the maintainer will perform some final (small) updates just before merging the patch or series, but in this case, that has not happened -- no specific wording was proposed or accepted in the thread, as far as I can see. Regardin the timeline: as of this writing, Zhichao opened PR#1033 eight hours ago, and you made the mergify bot merge the (unreviewed) patch 4 hours ago. That is, you just wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible, without any regard to the community (again -- I provided *specific* feedback under v1). This urgency is especially appalling when contrasted with your and Eric's total lack of feedback for Tom Lendacky's patch [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] UefiCpuPkg/MpInitLib: Reduce reset vector memory pressure https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65540 for almost a *month*. I had to merge that patch yesterday out of desperation and embarrassment for your behaviors, with only my R-b added. You forced me to break the development process in order not to alienate a prolific contributor. All one of you had to do was post an Acked-by. You can't make a contributor wait for this long, and you also can't sneak in patches without public review (or at least public agreement about the final touch-ups). If you can't do maintenance responsibly, for any reason, then *quit*; let someone else become maintainer. This behavior is a hallmark of the edk2 project not having a healthy open source community. Sad. Laszlo