Date
1 - 6 of 6
[RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum specifications
|
Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Are there any additional comments on the code first process for UEFI specifications?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
When should we expect the process to *actually* start being used? Thanks, --Samer -----Original Message-----IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Leif, Ray,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I have not seen any discussion on this thread since March(!)... Please see my comments below. -----Original Message-----I think pre-fixing the new interfaces is sufficient. Otherwise, you need to modify all code using the existing interfaces (for build verification) But the protocol definition is changed, it also needs to be prefixed accordingA changed protocol definition is not backwards compatible, and typically results in a new protocol GUID. In that case, it really becomes a new definition and need to be pre-fixed per this rule. Right? The way I read it, *all* new (and non-backward modified) identifiers (typedef struct, typedef enum, and new structfield in existing struct) need to be pre-fixed, regardless if the filename is prefixed or not.If FunctionName or HEADER_MACRO is defined in non-public header files, I Correct? IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Leif Lindholm
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:14:59 +0000, Ni, Ray wrote:
For example if a branch covers changes to multiple specifications, asWhat's the case when multiple .MD files are needed? described elsewhere. Or if it simply makes sense due to content size. It is possible, now we've migrated to .rst for edk2, that we should change the format recommentded in this proposal too. Adding new interfaces to a protocol does not affect its(This one may break down where we have a specification change affecting multiple backwards-compatibility, which was what I was trying to cover above. If you can think of a better way of describing it. I am very open to suggestions. But the protocol definition is changed, it also needs to be prefixed according to this flow.In that instance, only the new interfaces would need the prefix. Only public interfaces need prefix. This also means that non-publicIf FunctionName or HEADER_MACRO is defined in non-public header files, I don't interfaces should be STATIC where possible. Struct or enum definitions in the public header BzXXX.h don't need theFor data structures or enums, any new or non-backwards-compatible structs orWhat does "separate" mean? prefix *when they have a public-facing typedef with the prefix*. Everything new or not-backwards-compatible needs to be referred to via the prefixed names in external modules. I.e. we can have struct _SomeNewThing { }; typedef struct _SomeNewThing BzXXX_PROTOCOL; (This is meant simply as shorthand, reducing the amount of changes required for the published version.) That is one way we *could* do it. It is not one I am proposing.[3] Individual fields in newly added typedefd struct do not need prefix, theI think only the names (struct type name, enum type name, interface name, protocol/ppi name) My idea is that it should be very clear from looking at code whether it includes non-ratified proposal code. / Leif |
|
|
|
Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Acked-by: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message-----IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Ni, Ray
What's the case when multiple .MD files are needed? (This one may break down where we have a specification change affecting multiple If a protocol is enhanced to provide more interfaces with increased revision number, would you like the protocol name to be prefixed with BZ####? Or just the new interfaces added to the protocol are prefixed the BZ####? I think just prefixing the new interfaces can meet the purpose. But the protocol definition is changed, it also needs to be prefixed according to this flow. Can you clarify a bit more? If FunctionName or HEADER_MACRO is defined in non-public header files, I don't think they require the prefix. Do you agree? For data structures or enums, any new or non-backwards-compatible structs orWhat does "separate" mean? Does it mean "struct or enum in the public header BzXXX.h don't need the prefix"? If yes, then I think macros defined in BzXXX.h also don't need the prefix. [3] Individual fields in newly added typedefd struct do not need prefix, theI think only the names (struct type name, enum type name, interface name, protocol/ppi name) defined in public header files need the BZ prefix when the public header doesn't have prefix. Right? |
|
|
|
Leif Lindholm
Changes to v2 of this proposal:
- Feedback from Laszlo[a] and Mike[b] incorporated. - I opted to view Mike's responses to Laszlo's questions as accepted, as no follow-up was made. Feedback from Felix[c] *not* incorporated, as while I agree with all of it, I am not convinced that information should go here, but should instead reside with the UEFI Forum. (This text documents the public part of the process - it would cause me slight impedance mismatch to have it also document the non-public part.) [a] https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53422 [b] https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53738 [c] https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54453 / Leif --- This is a proposal for a process by which new features can be added to UEFI forum specifications after first having been designed and prototyped in the open. This process lets changes and the development of new features happen in the open, without violating the UEFI forum bylaws which prevent publication of code for in-draft features/changes. The process does not in fact change the UEFI bylaws - the change is that the development (of both specification and code) happens in the open. The resulting specification update is then submitted to the appropriate working goup as an Engineering Change Request (ECR), and voted on. For the UEFI Forum, this is a change in workflow, not a change in process. ECRs are tracked in a UEFI Forum Mantis instance, access restricted to UEFI Forum Members. TianoCore will enable this new process by providing areas on https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/ to track both specification updates and reference implementations and new repositories under https://github.com/tianocore/ dedicated to hold "code first". ## Bugzilla bugzilla.tianocore.org will have a product category each for * ACPI Specification * PI Specification * UEFI Specification Each product category will have a separate components for * Specification * Reference implementation ## Github New repositories will be added for holding the text changes and the source code. Specification text changes will be held within the affected source repository, in the Github flavour of markdown, in a file (or split across several files) with .md suffix. (This one may break down where we have a specification change affecting multiple specifications, but at that point we can track it with multiple BZ entries) Reference implementations targeting EDK2 will be held in branches on edk2-staging. Additional repositories for implementing reference features in additional open source projects can be added in the future, as required. ## Intended workflow The entity initiating a specifiation update raises a Bugzilla in the appropriate area in bugzilla.tianocore.org. This entry contains the outline of the change, and the full initial draft text is attached. If multiple specification updates are interdependent, especially if between different specifications, then multiple bugzilla entries should be created. These bugzilla entries *must* be linked together with dependencies. After the BZs have been created, new branches should be created in the relevant repositories for each bugzilla - the branch names should be BZ####, where #### describes the bugzilla ID assigned, optionally followed by a '-' and something more descriptive. If multiple bugzilla entries must coexist on a single branch, one of them is designated the 'top-level', with dependencies properly tracked. That BZ will be the one naming the branch. ## Source code In order to ensure draft code does not accidentally leak into production use, and to signify when the changeover from draft to final happens, *all* new or modified[1] identifiers need to be prefixed with the relevant BZ####. [1] Modified in a non-backwards-compatible way. If, for example, a statically sized array is grown - this does not need to be prefixed. But a tag in a comment would be *highly* recommended. ### File names New public header files need the prefix. I.e. `Bz1234MyNewProtocol.h` Private header files do not need the prefix. ### Contents The tagging must follow the coding style used by each affected codebase. Examples: | Released in spec | Draft version in tree | Comment | | --- | --- | --- | | `FunctionName` | `Bz1234FunctionName` | | | `HEADER_MACRO` | `BZ1234_HEADER_MACRO` | | For data structures or enums, any new or non-backwards-compatible structs or fields require a prefix. As above, growing an existing array in an existing struct requires no prefix. | `typedef SOME_STRUCT` | `BZ1234_SOME_STRUCT` | Typedef only [2] | | `StructField` | `Bz1234StructField` | In existing struct[3] | | `typedef SOME_ENUM` | `BZ1234_SOME_ENUM` | Typedef only [2] | [2] If the struct or enum definition is separate from the typedef in the public header, the definition does not need the prefix. [3] Individual fields in newly added typedefd struct do not need prefix, the struct already carried the prefix. Variable prefixes indicating global scope ('g' or 'm') go before the BZ prefix. | `gSomeGuid` | `gBz1234SomeGuid` | | Local identifiers, including module-global ones (m-prefixed) do not require a BZ prefix. |
|
|