[edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum specifications


Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
 

Leif,

I received additional feedback on this proposal.

We should add the UEFI Shell Specification to this new process. This includes adding a bugzilla.tianocore.org product category and a new Github repository for the "UEFI Shell Specification".

Thanks,
--Samer

-----Original Message-----
From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Samer El-
Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:19 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-
Mahmoud@arm.com>; ray.ni@intel.com; leif@nuviainc.com;
devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Felixp@ami.com; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@intel.com>; Andrew Fish
<afish@apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-
Mahmoud@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
specifications

Are there any additional comments on the code first process for UEFI
specifications?

When should we expect the process to *actually* start being used?

Thanks,
--Samer

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Samer
El-Haj- Mahmoud via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 5:11 PM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; ray.ni@intel.com; leif@nuviainc.com;
devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Felixp@ami.com; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@intel.com>; Andrew Fish
<afish@apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
<michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-
Mahmoud@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
specifications

Leif, Ray,

I have not seen any discussion on this thread since March(!)...

Please see my comments below.


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc@edk2.groups.io <rfc@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ni, Ray
via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 1:15 AM
To: rfc@edk2.groups.io; leif@nuviainc.com; devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Felixp@ami.com; Doran, Mark <mark.doran@intel.com>; Andrew Fish
<afish@apple.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael
D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-rfc] [RFCv2] code-first process for UEFI-forum
specifications


## 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.
What's the case when multiple .MD files are needed?

(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)


## 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.
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.
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
according to this flow.
Can you clarify a bit more?
A 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?


### 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` |
|

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 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.
What 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,
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.
I 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?
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.
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.

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.

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.