On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Fish wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 09:45 -0700, Andrew Fish wrote:
The current BaseTools process does not seem to work for any one
who d
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Fish wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 09:45 -0700, Andrew Fish wrote:
>>> The current BaseTools process does not seem to work for any one
>>> who does not have a @intel.com email address, and that seems lik
On Aug 20, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 09:45 -0700, Andrew Fish wrote:
>> The current BaseTools process does not seem to work for any one
>> who does not have a @intel.com email address, and that seems like
>> a broken thing for an open source project.
>
> Wha
On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 09:45 -0700, Andrew Fish wrote:
> The current BaseTools process does not seem to work for any one
> who does not have a @intel.com email address, and that seems like
> a broken thing for an open source project.
What difference does the @intel.com email address make with regar
Olivier,
In the early days of edk2 there was a lot of thrash on the tools and having a
separate project to work on the tools and only pushed released versions up kind
of made sense back then.
Now the more common changes are going to be adding compiler support, or making
minor changes to the t
Does the BaseTools project really need to be out of the EDK2 project? Why do
we not merge both projects?
The only reason I can see is to get the Windows BaseTools Binaries aligned
with the BaseTools synced version. But we also have the case with the
ShellPkg/ShellBinPkg where the ShellBinPkg are n
