[edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] MdePkg, SecurityPkg, OvmfPkg: revert unreviewed SM3 patches

[Wang, Jian J]

Hi Laszlo,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel at edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of
> Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 12:05 AM
> To: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel at edk2.groups.io>; Desai, Imran
> <imran.desai at intel.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>; Zhang, Chao B
> <chao.b.zhang at intel.com>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Yao,
> Jiewen <jiewen.yao at intel.com>; Justen, Jordan L
> <jordan.l.justen at intel.com>; Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org>; Gao,
> Liming <liming.gao at intel.com>; Marc-André Lureau
> <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; Stefan Berger <stefanb at linux.ibm.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 0/5] MdePkg, SecurityPkg, OvmfPkg:
> revert unreviewed SM3 patches
> 
> On 07/04/19 11:46, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > Repo:   https://github.com/lersek/edk2.git
> > Branch: revert_unreviewed_bz1781
> >
> > The MdePkg patch and the OvmfPkg patch committed for
> > <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1781> had not been
> > reviewed appropriately, so they must be reverted. Due to the MdePkg
> > patch being the basis of the entire series, the SecurityPkg patches in
> > the middle have to be reverted as well. (Leif pointed out that at least
> > some of the SecurityPkg patches were not reviewed *on the list* either,
> > so there's that too.)
> 
> I've now pushed this series (commit range 1ec05b81e59f..6a34c1ce7054),
> with Leif's (as a steward's) R-b, and Phil's R-b.
> 
> If these patches had been normal patches, obviously I would have waited
> for package maintainer review. However, these are *not* normal patches;
> they are reverts which return the tree to an earlier state -- to a state
> where unreviewed patches had not gone in yet. There's an argument to be
> made that Jian should have reverted the original patches without me
> having to post a revert series to the list at all -- either way, this
> has been urgent because the delta with the unreviewed patches "in"
> should be as minimal as possible. (Which is why I took it upon me to
> send the set.) For example, a bisection should preferably not hit the
> unreviewed range (good point from Leif). Furthermore, if we diverge too
> much meanwhile, then the reverts themselves could become messy.
> 

Understood. Thanks for doing this for me.

Regards,
Jian

> Imran: please resubmit your patches now. Please pay attention to shallow
> threading, and to actually working CC's. Regarding the SecurityPkg
> patches, if you are going to post them unchanged, please preserve the
> Reviewed-by tags from the SecurityPkg maintainers, but *ONLY IF* those
> Reviewed-by tags had been given publicly, on the list. (In other words,
> if they can be found in the mailing list archive.)
> 
> Thanks
> Laszlo
> 
> 


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#43326): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/43326
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32306503/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-