Hey Bret,

On 10/5/20, 12:35 PM, Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...> wrote:

Perhaps this is the time we get EdkRepo and Stuart to join forces and
become the one-true-repo-management solution for EDK.

I'm not opposed to that idea, but it sounds like a totally different RFC 😊. We also need to be cognizant that there are many people downstream from TianoCore that don't use any repo management tooling.

Thanks,
Nate

I think that to support anything larger that proofs of concept – in other words, to support the actual platforms that we WANT to consume this trusted, common code – we already have to support recursive submodules.

Our team HIGHLY recommends that platforms submodule edk2 rather than forking it, which means (for most) that they are already invested in repo management tooling of one form or another.

Perhaps this is the time we get EdkRepo and Stuart to join forces and become the one-true-repo-management solution for EDK.

Or we could all move to Rust and start complaining about Cargo immediately. 😉

- Bret

From: Nate DeSimone via groups.io<mailto:nathaniel.l.desimone@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:02 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; spbrogan@...<mailto:spbrogan@...>; rfc@edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc@edk2.groups.io>
Cc: Leif Lindholm<mailto:leif@...>; Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@...>; Ard Biesheuvel<mailto:ard.biesheuvel@...>; Kirkendall, Garrett<mailto:garrett.kirkendall@...>; Lendacky, Thomas<mailto:thomas.lendacky@...>; thomas.abraham@...<mailto:thomas.abraham@...>; Frank.Orr@...<mailto:Frank.Orr@...>; Jim Dailey<mailto:jim.dailey@...>; Abner Chang<mailto:abner.chang@...>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)<mailto:sunnywang@...>; Daniel Schaefer<mailto:daniel.schaefer@...>; Liming Gao<mailto:gaoliming@...>; Tim Lewis<mailto:tim.lewis@...>; Kevin D Davis<mailto:kevin.davis@...>; Felix Polyudov<mailto:felixp@...>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@...>; Oram, Isaac W<mailto:isaac.w.oram@...>; Ni, Ray<mailto:ray.ni@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Request to move MinPlatformPkg out of the Intel folder

Hey Sean,

On 10/2/20, 8:37 PM, Sean <spbrogan@...> wrote:

I could imagine a path where edk2-platforms starts using submodules (or
something with similar properties) and then pulls in the "new"
MinPlatform repo.

IMHO I'm starting to get annoyed at the number of submodules in edk2 at this point. It's getting to the point that we are in danger of needing recursive submodule clones, which are a huge PITA for anyone not using either stuart or EdkRepo. I'd rather not get to that point.

Thanks,
Nate

Hey Sean,

On 10/2/20, 8:37 PM, Sean <spbrogan@...> wrote:

I could imagine a path where edk2-platforms starts using submodules (or
something with similar properties) and then pulls in the "new"
MinPlatform repo.

IMHO I'm starting to get annoyed at the number of submodules in edk2 at this point. It's getting to the point that we are in danger of needing recursive submodule clones, which are a huge PITA for anyone not using either stuart or EdkRepo. I'd rather not get to that point.

Thanks,
Nate

Nate,

I would actually propose you go further. In Project Mu we consume MinPlatform as its own repo. This is because it has its own lifetime and spans multiple product generations and hopefully someday multiple architectures/silicon providers. By mixing it in with all the platform code of edk2-platforms it is harder to leverage in other projects.

https://github.com/microsoft/mu_common_intel_min_platform

I could imagine a path where edk2-platforms starts using submodules (or something with similar properties) and then pulls in the "new" MinPlatform repo. Then as code in the current package gets cleaned up and generalized for the firmware ecosystem it could be moved to the new MinPlatform repo.

Another thread with open edk2-platform questions: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/65544


Thanks
Sean