Seems no one has comment on this topic. Let's just go through the code review process. Thanks Abner Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 11:02 AM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; rfc@edk2.groups.io Cc: Wang,

Good to know. Then I recommend we document assumption in the design. I prefer to change "As the design, any BIOS to Redfish communicate should be done before End of DXE and with SecureBoot is

Thank you, Abner. I look forward to the design review in next week. :-) I notice that the last RedfishPkg update is still 2 years ago. In order to move staging to master, we need ensure the code

Abner, Are there RedFish dependencies in the REST EX Driver from your package? If not, perhaps it should be in the NetworkPkg, not in the RedFishPkg. Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:12 PM To:

Thanks Abner. Understood now. Yes, we need follow the regulation as always. I look forward to seeing the DMTF public repo. :-) Thank you Yao Jiewen Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:39 PM To:

HI Abner If it is DMTF private repo, should we discuss it in EDKII ? Do we have a public reference somewhere else? Thank you Yao Jiewen Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:23 PM To:

That link didn’t work for me. - Bret Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:59 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@...>;

JSON Structure would probably be worth discussing. I know that there are other places I’ve seen JSON used and it may end up that we want common business logic (similar to using Oniguruma for regex).

I think code review works. I’m primarily interested in seeing how much code falls under the “edk2” vs “edk2-staging” repos. - Bret Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:12 PM To:

Hi Everyone, Given that we have removed FSP 1.x support from TianoCore in edk2-stable201908, it seems that the 1.x FSP binaries at https://github.com/intel/FSP have become increasingly limited in

Hey Andrew, Your comments were helpful and valid 😊 Part of the appeal of making it into a pip module is that it doesn’t have a specific file system path. Python itself take cares of it and it

Matthew, I did not meant to imply we should optimize for the current installed base, I just think it is useful to think about them. I think Lazlo is pointing out what is best for the project and that

Andrew: I think leveraging the existing edksetup is a great idea. Using the existing EDK_TOOL_PATH variable could work but it seems clunky. Since the pip module wouldn't be a path, it seems strange

I've skimmed: - the earlier discussion linked above (rooted at <https://edk2.groups.io/g/rfc/message/270>), - the even earlier comments in the "Discussion: Basetools a separate repo" thread on

Matthew, I’ll throw out some current developer centric ideas. 1) If you `source edksetup.sh` (edksetup.bat) you get the current behavior, and you add an argument you get the pip flavor? So maybe

Hello all, A recent topic on the RFC mailing list went out and the work on moving Basetools/Sources/Python to a separate repo has started. See the RFC conversation here:

Hi Samer, Comments included below. Mike

Samer, While in the “code 1st state” there are BZ# prefixes to types and globals. So when the code ends up in the specification the “code 1st” branch is going to need to get cleaned up for

Mike, Looks good as a starting point! Acked-by: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@...> I do have a few questions on this sentence: "Specification text changes are held within the

A version of this Wiki page is also provided here for review: https://github.com/mdkinney/edk2/wiki/EDK-II-Code-First-Process Mike