Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC V2] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)


Michael D Kinney
 

I agree that the default policy is to only support a branch until the next
stable tag. My comments were only to address the potential for a request
after that defined support timeline. If a portion of the community wants
to do the work required to support past that point, then I doubt we would
reject the idea.

I will only document the default policy. Anything past that would have
to be raised as a new request.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io;
rfc@edk2.groups.io; gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn; Andrew Fish (afish@apple.com) <afish@apple.com>; Leif Lindholm
<leif@nuviainc.com>; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC V2] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address
critical bug BZ3111)

“I agree with Liming that stable branches should have a predefined
lifetime. Keeping stable branches regression-free is very difficult and
ungrateful work, and the community should not have expectations that
we're going to do "LTS" branches.”

Seconded. We actually had to update our release process with this blurb recently:
https://microsoft.github.io/mu/How/release_process/#post-lts-and-archiving

- Bret

From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 5:50 AM
To: Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>;
rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>; gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn<mailto:gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Andrew Fish
(afish@apple.com)<mailto:afish@apple.com>; Leif Lindholm<mailto:leif@nuviainc.com>; Sean
Brogan<mailto:sean.brogan@microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC V2] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)

On 12/16/20 01:24, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
Hello,

The following bug has been fixed on edk2/master

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D3111&;da
ta=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C092cd97468a645f68e4308d8a292a636%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7
C637438098026646126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;
sdata=wE%2B9eA3XrRxS58KUk6DbFZmvX9nvmWopzGoVRN5713k%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fpull%2F1226&;data=04%
7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C092cd97468a645f68e4308d8a292a636%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63743
8098026646126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=
MnXglF%2FvtUDAouXJvBUIRFq7TuPL2dKXohXwcEuY3zc%3D&amp;reserved=0

This bug is also considered a critical bug against edk2-stable202011. The behavior
of the Variable Lock Protocol was changed in a non-backwards compatible manner in
edk2-stable202011 and this is impacting some downstream platforms. The following
2 commits on edk2/master restore the original behavior of the Variable Lock Protocol.

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fpull%2F1226%2Fcommits%2F
893cfe2847b83da74f53858d6acaa15a348bad7c&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C092cd97468a645f68e4308d8a292a6
36%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637438098026646126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l
uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=h19eR7KFYlerrva%2FVGMDb7DMVIUihINgAlOh96Hb2xI%3D&amp;reserved=0
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2%2Fpull%2F1226%2Fcommits%2F
16491ba6a6e9a91cedeeed45bc0fbdfde49f7968&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C092cd97468a645f68e4308d8a292a6
36%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637438098026656126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l
uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=8nCkmGD5jRyfrsMID0ESAcUb8plWrRkFafvhPiS2Zo8%3D&amp;reserved=0

The request here is to create a supported branch from edk2-stable202011 tag and apply
these 2 commits as critical bug fixes on the supported branch.

Since we started using the edk2-stable* tag process, there has not been a request to create
a supported branch from one of those tags. As a result, there are a couple opens that
need to be addressed:

1) Supported branch naming convention.

Proposal: stable/<YYYY><MM>
Example: stable/202011

2) CI requirements for supported branches.

Proposal: Update .azurepipelines yml files to also trigger on stable/* branches
and update GitHub settings so stable/* branches are protected branches.

3) Release requirements for supported branches.

Proposal: If there are a significant number of critical fixes applied to
a stable/edk2-stable* branch, then a request for a release can be made that
would trigger focused testing of the supported branch and creation of a new
release. If all testing passes, then a tag is created on the stable/edk2-stable*
branch and a release is created on GitHub that summarizes the set of critical
fixes and the testing performed.

Proposal: edk2-stable<YYYY><MM>.<XX>
Example : edk2-stable201111.01

Please let me know if you have any feedback or comments on this proposal. The goal
is to close on this topic this week.
- Looks good; just a typo in the example: "edk2-stable201111.01" should
use 2020, not 2011.


- I agree with Liming that stable branches should have a predefined
lifetime. Keeping stable branches regression-free is very difficult and
ungrateful work, and the community should not have expectations that
we're going to do "LTS" branches. That's too resource hungry; companies
have dedicated "maintenance engineer" positions for that.

Here's an example stable process:

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.qemu.org%2F%3Fp%3Dqemu.git%3Ba%3Dblob_plain%3Bf%3Ddo
cs%2Fdevel%2Fstable-
process.rst%3Bhb%3DHEAD&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C092cd97468a645f68e4308d8a292a636%7C72f988bf86f1
41af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637438098026656126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h
aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=bOmSbEHuU%2BqLr3mdmhP%2Foq%2BR7yy%2BVNUWbG367yhFwQE%3D&amp;reserved=0

I would recommend that, initially, we only promise support for the last
stable tag's branch.


- Including a unit test (if it exists) with the actual bugfix on a
stable branch seems important to me.

Thanks
Laszlo




Join rfc@edk2.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.