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 46CE04387A; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF00402DF; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yw1-f171.google.com (mail-yw1-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70AFC4021F for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw1-f171.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-5efb0e180f0so33546567b3.1 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2024 13:37:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1704836242; x=1705441042; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nbOARtkjZJSeiopI54nfE6l2qD6rstQuNvvrHzEmOZs=; b=H6Spi5iev/DCkBHIudBBPeeK+2SimCxDBdd8jI1wVftoGocsRm4HPReRNzbiAl6xLq GyHPcJW7ydv0ly6IpInXuQJlcl3Jo6vLXM3JajDzhQD6Y2Q0nEeqBcei4pQN3DiO5E15 tNfMJt+7/dXQEVH26eJBZKxp3bgVDzCmXB4lo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704836242; x=1705441042; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=nbOARtkjZJSeiopI54nfE6l2qD6rstQuNvvrHzEmOZs=; b=F/V3v/2rGaGwn/+EUgoqg3qFy3Ox8jLnRM3T72crH1VAILxGMMQR4hYpU7PNiCWCOS 2TgOPhImLlmH39knJ1UIhw9dR9DRQ4LaoOeWfn3jEp4r4OIoQIXGoSLdHj9K5CvdvNBw KaKwW+RRyo088zYqQUrSmYT4PFPO8OwXYXNlL9jEAzTZhLLK/a4o6u54dWA4V77lr0y9 UxxxddkEOSUObyQmk2JRwTDai/FKnUapZz3wDxHnNzDsnMiweUJRJA1f2VNcAGf6t4+N Ci5CAgTQNEi2zosKqoTSktD01isvzZ+2Mqlenq+GDjvcXhcOZTfoeC9UGNkEoLfabyd7 a7JA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwU52MQqsTMhnLXwvB49IMnjYLRBnfeyV4utbs1JVRoUaMJAyoe KCAWKvfzVZRlBRQyp5F6WBsir1c/Jymjxs/0ik0jWx7efMLtRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFlw9H0ummYo8gBzMpHH/RtQR2rAxzteZdF12zmZ45Upr1SNI7Qn1h78pASaoLzAI84KeBQzmbOrTD/VsLwI/0= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ce8c:0:b0:dbd:a5ad:51e4 with SMTP id x134-20020a25ce8c000000b00dbda5ad51e4mr35337ybe.23.1704836242685; Tue, 09 Jan 2024 13:37:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <76c7821a-f7b9-4782-8c7f-af726da203a3@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <76c7821a-f7b9-4782-8c7f-af726da203a3@amd.com> From: Adam Hassick Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 16:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Depends-on patchseries support via git-pw or patchwork To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Patrick Robb , ci@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, "NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)" , David Marchand , Aaron Conole , zhoumin , "Mcnamara, John" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a556d1060e8a1e40" 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 --000000000000a556d1060e8a1e40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=AFAM Ferruh Yigit = 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 produce= s > > 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 w= e > > 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, an= d > > one of the patchwork maintainers chimed in to suggest that rather than > > implementing the feature on the client side via git-pw, it should simpl= y > > 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 > > > > > > 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? > > --000000000000a556d1060e8a1e40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not sure yet. I've poked the issue threa= d about whether they need our help with anything and what the next steps ar= e.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:18=E2=80=AFAM 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 UN= H
> is writing a script which leverages git-pw, and takes as arguments a > patch series patchwork id, patchwork project, and pw token, and produc= es
> a project artifact for CI testing purposes. Starting in January we wil= l
> 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.=C2= =A0
>
> 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 creat= e
> 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, a= nd
> one of the patchwork maintainers chimed in to suggest that rather than=
> implementing the feature on the client side via git-pw, it should simp= ly
> be implemented for patchwork itself. That way if it's patchwork se= rver
> side and exposed via the api, other client side tools like pwclient ca= n
> also receive=C2=A0the benefits.
>
> I just wanted to flag this on the ci mailing list so that anyone with<= br> > thoughts could submit them on the Github issue, which you can find
> here:=C2=A0https://github.com/getpatchwork/git-= pw/issues/71
> <https://github.com/getpatchwork/git-pw/is= sues/71>
>
> Thanks Adam for pushing this effort forward.=C2=A0
>

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?

--000000000000a556d1060e8a1e40--