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?