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 A5D4B43879; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1D940266; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yb1-f182.google.com (mail-yb1-f182.google.com [209.85.219.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C7540266 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:37:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yb1-f182.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dbed4b03b48so2517723276.3 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=lzMxhLnPg8TNGKcOihyLpmWywlttptqfG9qfcA0ojysI0QE/WZq2wP+6XJe4XoTUp9 WG7eE0ygmlnJhq1gJplr+s+5/3dQiVrcZ4e+D28vSSeP7LPyoyEHrzo4YW4y6y5nXBpb BE1FD+JYb72bfBBrKY1J9G7vJoAYH24aQwFGtIge8RBQtr05L0qylTrdGJ3qOT9fNRqm WUR0hU3275B7YF4MIw9yHBqM1hu+VgUnm11D4JIpKlg50GNPORh1a/SEfsCH3/AboLDP uLvIZ/wcNQR0qcOzMVa9/wApcdJem1CoZ99cGgIdz9BHI3q90J0p8Dvk3OpeMLKubSEz nywQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw5uIc0iBzGBfh8RxTz3JOkmKriNPCbThHZqtzMJnDqL54Bja3n CMm1hrQD+1kD4R0JXU8sR0ZMuIQ14EnzFZ0IlL+/gMTZEkjphw== 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: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-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--