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 A474BA0C5B for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:16:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FAB41223; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:16:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F207C411C9 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:16:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B045C014F; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Nov 2021 14:16:31 -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= a8zhhS9yeLT5c9GFrUCEZ+bxM117DIqNWEsXuSWOOLI=; b=qlTQ+UO/fkGNyvCg Z7bh1QmAJ+FNO35kYz3emcLm+S7KOWMYmJX8CvdarSQghK8Lf5DcybVogeWCFRtX tl1eHmB9OTJKaO1I16Gj/W/vv+xZbqS9/X3U5ps4ceqxTBFFKRUBBZwaUbeBe67r 1mt280eFXllznDW9J9Fy6PB1N+YSlyrckdzyjAmMqXokjst0HwaZqkCR60FJsN69 7KoWcKDptBquy1Ck1lfaNPn6kJivkak7kfxyr9XzZalqAs/IC8xr5L6aXqBVbK8d VwF8amEsNDUTfMQ+c6J3ojtIYddpLokljd2k2htNNEyBd0T8ib2e5lKrffjd0FMe 0hL1Iw== 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=a8zhhS9yeLT5c9GFrUCEZ+bxM117DIqNWEsXuSWOO LI=; b=DUgBM4wh0AXVxScUHkomA7uNmk0iSQzxozJDbRftFiNZL50Cs0vmmGkdo DxXfODPWnRRzrDnp6/2oJY0KrmUzAJ9XD6ZwOs0hmGzGPcP40nbfj+TttQjWgXkY IA8ydKwZhVhRVZuiNt0Ss3sQP7/tX5Tw+nJc6pZteDaWlpMdSMnnVDBF+bZyiwf1 Li86bCeT7K0xb4tyTkiQ5DePuLXUy8UDxBsPksmeZgmhzF234ILDSBd5Jw+2vKcK ExQDryS4ZkDU7Ds+xhdRFMzsD+5P8cNwiQU+y8sUb0O5RcqAvXiVzBBWtrbOC6oe nsdP9UG0Jd6HB64+Tw9SmYbRomCYA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrtdeggddutdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 14:16:30 -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: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 19:16:29 +0100 Message-ID: <2566422.rZZgpRVHQ4@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20210906154537.1299-1-alialnu@nvidia.com> <1810993.5c47M4QTcs@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" 04/11/2021 17:48, Ali Alnubani: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 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? > > Isn't it safer not to force overriding the delegate by default? > Users can send patches with the header "X-Patchwork-Delegate" to set a specific delegate. Maintainers might want to set another user as the delegate when there are multiple delegates in the MAINTAINERS file for a patch. Should we override these by default? These considerations don't contradict with the option name. If we have the option --skip-delegated (or --only-non-delegated), we can always use this option in the automatic run. But for a manual run, I expect the script to delegate a patch the user explicitly wants to set, without requiring a "force" option.