On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kinney, Michael D
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments on a proposal on how EDK II BaseTools is
> maintained. The goal is to move all tool related development activities to
> the EDK II BaseTools. This is to address community feedback that there are
>
On Jul 11, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> And Jordan
> explained to me that git had grown great support on Windows too, so it’s
SourceTree is a good git GUI front end and it works on Windows 7+, and it is
free.
> not just for "Linux enthusiasts". (I of course assume that git works o
On 07/12/14 00:53, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kinney, Michael D
> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am looking for comments on a proposal on how EDK II BaseTools is
>> maintained. The goal is to move all tool related development
>> activities
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Fish wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kinney, Michael D
> 3) Delete Win32 binaries from EDK II BaseTools and replace with an SVN
> extern.
> a. Default will continue to pull Win32 binaries
> b. Developers that do not want Win32 binaries can opt-out by
On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Kinney, Michael D
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments on a proposal on how EDK II BaseTools is
> maintained. The goal is to move all tool related development activities to
> the EDK II BaseTools. This is to address community feedback that there are
>
On 2014-07-10 16:11:50, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments on a proposal on how EDK II BaseTools is
> maintained. The goal is to move all tool related development
> activities to the EDK II BaseTools. This is to address community
> feedback that there are long delays
Olivier,
Developers that do development on windows typically use the pre-built binaries.
By building each day, the BaseTools source and BaseToosl binaries are very
close to always being in sync. This should make it easier to report and root
cause bugs against BaseTools independent of the use
It looks good to me.
Except it seems to add a lot of complexity in term of infrastructure support
to only pull off the Win32 BaseTools binaries.
An easier approach would have been to only rebuild the Win32 BaseTools once
in a while such as it is already done with the
FatBinPkg/EdkShellBinPkg/Shell
On 07/11/14 01:11, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for comments on a proposal on how EDK II BaseTools is
> maintained. The goal is to move all tool related development
> activities to the EDK II BaseTools. This is to address community
> feedback that there are long delays betw
