On 07/25/17 01:45, Michael D Kinney wrote: > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628 > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629 > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=642 > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643 > > New in V4
> * Revert change to remove commit message details from > Contributions.txt. Instead, this section has been updated to support > both code and documentation patches. > This new agreement does not have any changes for code contributions. > It adds content to cover open source documentation contributions. I was a bit confused why updating the source tree to 1.1 was then justified, but "Patch v4 3/6" explains it well in the commit message. I have one suggestion for patch 3: it says that CodeModule should be omitted from docs patches. However, I suggest that we keep the same format for docs patches as well; "CodeModule" (or rather "DocModule" could refer to the chapter or section of the gitbook that is being modified (chapters and appendices are kept in separate files -- sometimes even in multiple files in separate directories -- in the docbook source trees anyway, and I think "DocModule" could be a logical match). Just my opinion of course. Regarding patch 5, and the special handling of the OvmfPkg license file -- today I commented on that in <https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-July/012547.html>: > perhaps one root license file with a default license, and pathname > patterns that cumulatively cover all of the exceptions. Or one license > file per package, with a default license for the package, plus > pathname patterns, where the patterns cumulatively cover all of the > exceptions within the package. IIUC, patch #5 would leave two license files in the tree, the tree-wide default, and OVMF's with some exceptions (identified by pathnames). I feel that representing exceptions with two methods ((a) separate license files that override each other, and (b) pathnames in said license files) is a bit confusing. So I think we should *either* (1) have one core license file that spells out all of the exceptions in the tree (by pathname), *or* (2) have package-level, independent license files that spell out exceptions in their own respective, containing packages. Currently patch 5 seems to be a mix of the two. (Note: I use *bold* above in an attempt to make myself clear; it certainly doesn't mean that I "insist" on this. I don't feel very strongly about this, so if you or Jordan disagree with my point, I'm fine. In particular I seem to recall that Jordan disagrees with option (1), and you likely disagree with option (2), because that's what we have right now.) Thanks Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
