On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 10:32:55 +0800, gaoliming wrote:
Now, we have reviewer and maintainer role. Reviewer takes role 1~4.
Maintainer takes role 1~7. If the people know edk2 process well, they mostly
know edk2 one or more packages (modules). So, they can take Maintainer role.
If the people only focus on the technical review, they can take reviewer
role. I would suggest there is at lease one Maintainer for each package.
There are more reviewers for each package.
Here are my comments.
Guidelines for a Maintainer. Never let a pending request get older than a
calendar week. This requirement is too strict to the maintainer or reviewer.
The maintainer or reviewer should try to give the response in one week. But,
they may not fully review one patch set in one week, es for the feature or
the complex change.
My take on this is as follows (speaking as someone who has failed this
rule many times):
This document is a guideline.
In some cases we are not yet in a position to be more timely about this.
That's where we need more reviewers to help out. Whether they are
official designated reviewers or not. If some parts of the codebase
always take long time to get review feedback for, that is a sign of a
problem that needs to be addressed.
I agree that for a very invasive change, we may not be able to give a
detailed reply early on. But in those cases, we should convey that
feedback *very* early on.
Role of a Contributor/developer. We need to highlight the role &
responsibility for the incompatible change. If the contributor proposes the
incompatible change, he needs to coordinate with the impacted platform
maintainer and make the agreement who will follow up to update the impacted
platforms before he requests to merge his patch set. The impacted platforms
include all ones in Edk2 and Edk2Platforms.
This is a good point. The details may need more discussion.
Last, this page also needs to include release maintainer Definition and
Role. The release maintainer is to create the quarterly stable tag. He takes
the role to collect the feature planning for each stable tag, schedule the
release date, and create the stable tag with the release notes on tag page.
He will also send the announcement of soft feature freeze, hard feature
freeze and the stable tag completement to edk2 community.
This is also a good point.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> 代表 Yao, Jiewen
发送时间: 2020年9月26日 13:33
收件人: email@example.com; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@...>; Guptha,
Soumya K <soumya.k.guptha@...>; firstname.lastname@example.org
主题: Re: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - please
Some other thought is about maintainer’s role definition:
The role of a maintainer is to:
1. Maintainer assignments to packages and source file name patterns are
provided in the "
2. Subscribe to the "edk2-bugs" mailing list
<https://edk2.groups.io/g/bugs> https://edk2.groups.io/g/bugs, which
propagates TianoCore Bugzilla <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/>
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/ actions via email. Keep a close eye on new
issues reported for their assigned packages. Participate in triaging and
analyzing bugs filed for their assigned packages.
3. Responsible for reviewing patches and answering questions from
contributors, on the edk2-devel mailing list
4. Responsible for coordinating patch review with co-maintainers and
reviewers of the same package.
5. Has push / merge access to the merge branch.
6. Responsible for merging approved patches into the master branch.
7. Follow the EDK II development
IMHO, the 1~4 need technical expertise, while 5~7 need process expertise.
Logically, the can be two separated roles and be done by two different
A people who has strong technical expertise might NOT be the best person to
do the integration, and vice versa. I hope we can let right person do right
thing in right way.
For example, to avoid mistake during check in, 5~7 can be done by a role
My dream is that check-in process is just one click button. But it seems we
are still far from it…
My two cents.
From: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > On Behalf Of Yao,
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 1:09 PM
To: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> ; Guptha, Soumya K
<soumya.k.guptha@... <mailto:soumya.k.guptha@...> >;
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - please
Thanks Soumya. I think this is a good start.
Recently we are discussing the maintainer’s work in EDKII mailing list,
with title “more development process failure”.
I feel the process mentioned in
cess is not clear enough to follow, especially for the maintainer who is not
full time working on EDKII.
I wish we can have this opportunity to revisit the “Follow the EDK II
ocess> process” and make “the process” simpler and clearer.
Then all maintainers can sign to follow one rule. The rule we define and the
rule we agree with.
From: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > On Behalf Of Soumya
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:35 AM
To: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> ;
Subject: [edk2-devel] Tianocore community page on who we are - please review
Dear Community members,
I have drafted a document “who we are”, explaining Tianocore community
structure, members of the community, their role and the current development
process. I have drafted this document with the help of the Tianocore
We view this as a living document, as our development processes evolve, I
will keep this document updated.
Please review the draft version of the document (link below) and provide
your feedback. Please send it to me, no need to reply all.
I appreciate your input by Friday, Oct 2. After this, I plan on make it live
on our TianoCore wiki site.
TianoCore Community Manager