From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Config.mk: update OVMF changeset
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:38:41 +0100
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510231233010.15801@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
References: <1444822873-28287-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1445529318.2374.29.camel@citrix.com>
	<22057.1980.705627.525934@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<1445530173.2374.41.camel@citrix.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1510221711090.15801@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<22057.6169.341549.297357@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
	<562A059002000078000ADD9E@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<1445591513.2374.73.camel@citrix.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1510231103400.15801@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<22058.6010.169770.684351@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=7315b2a74=Stefano.Stabellini@citrix.com>)
	id 1Zpagl-0007hU-HV
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:39:15 +0000
In-Reply-To: <22058.6010.169770.684351@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [PATCH] Config.mk: update OVMF changeset"):
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > Yes. Those (that?) and the reasons why we aren't just trivially taking them
> > > are explained in the referenced thread.
> 
> That explanation isn't very convincing to me.
> 
> > I cannot believe we are going to move forward without a way to introduce
> > any OVMF fixes into the  stable branches.
> 
> It is fine to introduce OVMF fixes into stable branches, of course.
> 
> But it is not fine to introduce other upstream changes to OVMF,
> willy-nilly.
> 
> Obviously these two requirements cannot be satisfied without there
> being some branch of OVMF which contains the intended fixes, without
> the unwanted upstream development.
> 
> If OVMF upstream do not have such a branch, we need to create one.

That's fine. We need the new branch in osstest and somebody maintaining
it.