Re: Depends-on patchseries support via git-pw or patchwork

[Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1954 bytes --]

 I'm not sure yet. I've poked the issue thread about whether they need our
help with anything and what the next steps are.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com> wrote:

> On 12/22/2023 5:26 PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As some of you know from discussions at DPDK CI meetings, Adam from UNH
> > is writing a script which leverages git-pw, and takes as arguments a
> > patch series patchwork id, patchwork project, and pw token, and produces
> > a project artifact for CI testing purposes. Starting in January we will
> > use it for applying patches to DPDK and creating our dpdk.tar.gz
> > artifacts for testing. And, we will submit it to the dpdk-ci repo.
> >
> > Anyways, when we originally discussed the idea, Thomas suggested that we
> > implement the depends-on functionality by contributing to the git-pw
> > project, as opposed to implementing the depend-on support in the create
> > artifact script itself. Adam did create a github issue on the git-pw
> > project in order to poll the community for interest in this feature, and
> > one of the patchwork maintainers chimed in to suggest that rather than
> > implementing the feature on the client side via git-pw, it should simply
> > be implemented for patchwork itself. That way if it's patchwork server
> > side and exposed via the api, other client side tools like pwclient can
> > also receive the benefits.
> >
> > I just wanted to flag this on the ci mailing list so that anyone with
> > thoughts could submit them on the Github issue, which you can find
> > here: https://github.com/getpatchwork/git-pw/issues/71
> > <https://github.com/getpatchwork/git-pw/issues/71>
> >
> > Thanks Adam for pushing this effort forward.
> >
>
> Thanks Patrick for the update and thanks Adam for driving this.
>
> Implementing support to patchwork sounds good to me, is anything
> expected from our end for this?
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2613 bytes --]