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 3912542661; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:06:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EC840273; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:06:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F084021D for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 14:06:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1695902795; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dw6sYHspW+cYQrP/waCBZqIFIDJ637TdLsNvyiZavFQ=; b=V92qlmnIFT8ccvsbtt4vVJZBhvJAtW/IVYYCvU5EhLaDxZT0BfvabVtSIyo1wr1/RXCSX2 cqCz4W1iZK0RYra71hF5guUnobw/L0ljjwOiF1AHvEgXg/4e1qKt4Lv9biYUxPOPPUHcW0 6696YvGBgC0lbb9ld5VzkVg6wlAiVqY= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-456-0cPYvXo3Oj-5gTX0ffAyDw-1; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:06:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0cPYvXo3Oj-5gTX0ffAyDw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CE71811E98; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (unknown [10.22.10.131]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4D440C2064; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:06:33 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Patrick Robb , ci@dpdk.org Subject: Re: Apply Patchseries Script References: <26230939.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:06:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <26230939.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> (Thomas Monjalon's message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2023 22:22:07 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Thomas Monjalon writes: > 27/09/2023 18:31, Patrick Robb: >> Hello all, >>=20 >> The Community Lab is reviewing and rewriting some parts of our (currentl= y >> internal) apply patchseries script. The reasons are: >>=20 >> 1. We want to remove any dependency the apply script has on our internal >> infrastructure, so that it can be upstreamed and utilized by others in t= he >> community. > > Good news. > >> 2. We want to add in new features like =E2=80=9Cdepends-on patch=E2=80= =9D applying (like >> ovsrobot is doing currently) > > Yes would be fantastic. > >> 3. Some DPDK project processes have changed (like moving next branches f= rom >> the main repo to being their own distinct repos). We have added on >> workarounds along the way to account for this, but an overall rework is = now >> in order to clean up our process. > > I don't think it changed. > >> Before we do the work and attempt to upstream the script, I want to veri= fy >> with the community that our current assumptions regarding the apply >> patchseries process are appropriate and should not be tweaked. Assumptio= ns: >>=20 >> 1. There are two inputs, A. The pw series url and B. The branch output o= f >> pw_maintainers_cli.py > > So it is only 1 input, because B can be deduced from A. > >> 2. Do not apply and run if the series is an RFC series > > Not sure about this requirement. > What is the problem in running tests on RFC? > >> 3. Always check out to the current head of tree when applying a patch, >> regardless of whether the tree state has changed between patch submissio= n >> and patch application in CI. > > I don't think it is reasonable to look for the exact tree state > of patch submission, so yes I agree to use the head of the tree. > If it becomes quickly non applicable, then the author needs to update. > It does not happen frequently. +1 >> 4. If the cover letter contains =E2=80=9Cdepends-on,=E2=80=9D extract th= e dependency series >> id(s), apply those, then attempt to apply the patch > > Yes > >> 5. If patch does not cleanly apply to the branch supplied by >> pw_maintainers_cli.py, attempt to apply on dpdk main. If this also fails= , >> report an apply failure. > > Yes > >> 6. If apply is successful, attempt a sanity build, and report a build >> failure if that fails. If it succeeds, proceed with all CI testing. > > Yes > >> Note: The Community Lab does not currently use pw-client. If it is bette= r >> for the CI community, we could stop maintaining a dedicated script for t= he >> apply process, try moving the pw-client, and direct our efforts at patch= ing >> pw-client with the goal of adding support for features like depends-on. = Are >> other labs using pw-client right now and do you recommend it? > > In general I think it is a good idea to use common tools. > About adding depends-on support, it looks a great idea. > Other projects could use the same syntax then. > That's the same for the CI support in patchwork: we invented it in DPDK.