On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 10:46 +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > I'm fine if we move the generic CSM components into OvmfPkg, however I'm > going to ask David to assume reviewer responsibilities for them. > > Given the current format of "Maintainers.txt", we couldn't spell out the > exact pathnames of the CSM components, so we'd add a line like > > R: David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> > > under OvmfPkg. There is "prior art" for this pattern, see: > > R: Anthony Perard <anthony.per...@citrix.com> > R: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> > > Because Anthony and Julien are the authority on Xen-related code under > OvmfPkg. (See commit 337fe6a06eda, "Maintainers.txt: add Xen reviewers > to OvmfPkg", 2017-09-26.) > > > If we keep CSM support in OvmfPkg in any form at all, then I would > prefer holding all the related stuff in the core edk2 repository (with > the above Reviewership), over requiring people to deal with multiple > repositories. I agree (from experience) that PACKAGES_PATH / multiple > workspaces work fine, but in this case I think keeping one shared > history is an advantage.
This all makes sense to me.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
