Hi Ray, On 10/08/18 05:07, Ni, Ruiyu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:14 PM >> To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Zhang, Chao B <chao.b.zh...@intel.com> >> Cc: Zhang, Shenglei <shenglei.zh...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; >> Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com> >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v3 00/16] Removed unused PCDs >> >> Ray, Chao, >> >> guys, you keep breaking the development process. Please fix your email >> clients *now*. >> >> This is not the first time it has happened. If I remember correctly, Ray >> blamed >> his email client last time (not showing message threads correctly, or >> something similar). >> >> I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. This is on-going, systemic disregard >> for the >> project's other participants. >> >> Please fix your mail user agents *now*. >> >> Here's my promise. Next time, I'm going to revert such commits (assuming I >> manage to catch them again). They do not represent the facts from the >> mailing list. > > Sorry about that. I can understand it. > So this is the first mail I choose to reply after a long holiday. > I am now using Mozilla Thunderbird to only receive mails from this mailing > list. > This mail client can group the mails correctly so if I missed any R-b that's > absolutely > my fault😊 > > There is a difference between help-to-push for Intel developers and non-Intel > developers. > As the Intel developer, Shenglei is very kind to prepare the patch files with > R-b and > send to me internally as attachments. All I need to do is pushing the patches. > Before the pushing, I will check whether there is R-b but won't check whether > all R-bs > are there. > > For non-Intel developers, I will edit the patch to list all R-bs before > pushing. > > Again, thanks for enforcing the process. We will follow the process more > strictly in future.
Thank you for following up. Traditionally, going through the review feedback, and picking up R-b / T-b and similar tags, are the maintainer's task, involving a git-rebase with "reword" operations, and the final push. I'm not sure how it helps to split this work, for any given /single/ series, between multiple people. To me it seems difficult to coordinate. It definitely makes sense to distribute /multiple/ series over a pool of maintainers. I think it's the sub-series granularity that is difficult. In edk2's case, if I remember correctly, there have been some series even that modified multiple Packages, and were finally pushed by a single maintainer (after everything had been fully reviewed). That's a good approach. If I can help with pushing a patch set at any time (because it is fully reviewed, but it's hard to find the time to wrangle the patches), please ping me, on-list or off-list, as you prefer. (We might also end up updating the workflow so that it become less error-prone when not using the git command line.) Thanks! Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
