Jordan Justen [mailto:jordan.l.jus...@intel.com] wrote:
]Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 02:24 AM
]To: edk2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Scott Duplichan
]Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] BaseTools/GCC: allow unused but set variables
]
]On 2015-07-08 19:31:09, Scott Duplichan wrote:
]> Bruce Cran [mailto:br
From: Cecil Sheng
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
---
BaseTools/Source/Python/GenFds/FdfParser.py| 90 +++---
.../Source/Python/Workspace/MetaFileParser.py | 12 +--
2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 16 de
From: Sriram Subramanian
Modified the logic in Ip4Dxe and Ip6Dxe to not locate EFI_IPSEC2_PROTOCOL on
each message transmit/receive. Instead, register a callback in the drivers
entry points on the IpSec protocol installation, and process only if the
protocol is installed. This speeds up the ne
Your subject line is too long. (151 characters)
BaseTools/Contributions.txt
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Commit-Message-Format
Should this be 2 patches? ('Also added...')
On 2015-07-11 07:00:48, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
> From: Cecil Sheng
>
> Contributed-under: Ti
Your subject line is too long. (86 characters)
NetworkPkg/Contributions.txt
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Commit-Message-Format
On 2015-07-11 07:51:24, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
> From: Sriram Subramanian
>
> Modified the logic in Ip4Dxe and Ip6Dxe to not locate EFI_I
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:02:10PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> My lack of faith is based on "experience" :) We've been complaining
> about this for ages on the list. I think it is safe to assume that the
> primary "participant" that has legal access to all supported Microsoft
> toolchains is Inte
On 2015-07-08 12:02:10, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> It seems to follow that Intel should operate such a build
> farm. Based on how long we've been whining about this, I don't think
> it's going to happen any time soon.
Intel has had such a build farm for years. It does usually catch these
issues... afte
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 11:42 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>
> It could be that the move to git will make it more feasible to have a
> testing branch that could allow all patches to first be tested against
> all toolchains. But, personally I'm not really sure that a separate
> branch would be worth th
