From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B800A0C45 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:08:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E1840E0F; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:08:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7020E407FF for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:08:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098BA5C03B6; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 10:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 10:08:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= sV24gi1gw8WF6rLG1gciv6NjQMWXELblrQjFd5epklM=; b=MY8m3v4CXyhQf8Yi bqbQ1GpYTOr8Moox/RLfahNfVj44bLpP8IQWF3kXgzDLVse7cLgdP4Zs0+fNOaxr E7XuuWynMV/AadqA/kMN2Ny2XssScTtfv/j2VMyZWe1ruYbs2Ws+GPwQ4P9wuO+C 6J3MyGkvRt1wcmLb6eqPGz5RuhI9aTMrpWiP+BV3l10HvXi8LpJowVkN4patYlcB D9ynmlHDtgPsIXYbD6E31SVaEu6jTrgxjrHWulJDiMjwvrzxTrDexfCTITbFXFg1 ZgDBXq3YKEHOB7fFw7v5siO4l8qffGFicodWAmZfORnyQzoT/6PnOSol+Xw7w9+h eBTjig== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=sV24gi1gw8WF6rLG1gciv6NjQMWXELblrQjFd5epk lM=; b=e/gKMEXSu0Cs3ZsY9mFAfaJw03DGrz1MWcz+Q4NlpEpErMw1sEAQrxgcf cfZCLtI7OQERkfpMtwHYI6lADB0bRz7vbrRNR8bZYhsuNYemRHkcyecHWJ2cuhDm hAePyJuZ/dwxd6e/xJDzngLZpst1ZvbDH/82iD2O/yPGOZ89Zk9QfYFWUEn1woFK wH1NRzl1EfcIR4IpELMlFrEGwlL8CggEOcyjSL0BnFw+gHwzowSiUzJfN6If5+pg WM1Kr1ZXoUdXPMFkHKCiQvBT+5PORx7LgAJWa7nHAGkPuzwHBB0dY425vUCx+sHH Ph0ejf0U+vSz91+Wr0LF/E06E34JQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdefkedggeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 10:08:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ali Alnubani Cc: "ci@dpdk.org" , "jerinj@marvell.com" , "ferruh.yigit@intel.com" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech" Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:08:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1810993.5c47M4QTcs@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210906154537.1299-1-alialnu@nvidia.com> <24744594.yUaU8azXQc@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [PATCH v2 05/10] tools: add functionality for setting pw delegates X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 18/10/2021 09:48, Ali Alnubani: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 21/09/2021 16:35, alialnu@nvidia.com: > > > From: Ali Alnubani > > > > > > A new command was added to set patch delegates in Patchwork > > > based on the emails found in DPDK's MAINTAINERS file. > > > > > > Example usage: > > > $ export MAINTAINERS_FILE_PATH=/path/to/dpdk/MAINTAINERS > > > $ ./pw_maintainers_cli.py --type series set_pw_delegate SERIES_ID > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ali Alnubani > > > --- > > > + def set_delegate(self, patch_list, delegate): > > > + """Set the delegate for a patch. > > > + Only tries to set a delegate for patches that don't have > > > + one set already. > > > > I'm not sure we should skip patches which are already delegated. > > If we use the command to explicitly delegate the patch, > > we should do it, right? > > > > The skip logic may be implemented at a higher level in the CI. > > I added an arg (--force_set_delegate) to force overriding delegates in v3. Given the command is to set delegate, the force looks strange to me. Wouldn't it be more logical to add an option to skip already delegated patches?