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 0587743760; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 18:26:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C1140A73; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 18:26:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ot1-f41.google.com (mail-ot1-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4FC402B9 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 18:26:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ot1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6d855efb920so1344645a34.1 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:26:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1703265973; x=1703870773; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4pX3oda1impfJrf4/LZVBDXzVFOv43W5Dxm5D29CgTE=; b=BG7ocHhlPMznTPZFZRT/5ozHVSdYZ/1qLVD6Ce5wRjN2miDgFanmxCUC1/bfRWcEsU H1Fgo5xKRoDX5iBJ8NjKVfhXGSGDrgBIjB73SVysz/PI7bkoHYpK05JlSgrf+tppcIMS lzNOFp02IkKHuzPDVpOqFRUAxNSrih146CVUw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703265973; x=1703870773; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4pX3oda1impfJrf4/LZVBDXzVFOv43W5Dxm5D29CgTE=; b=JTvSrjL+aP6TAO8h9f1MV5CInkTEJ8WvmnGUEKHshgEotPQhOD2tICYtgS7x4eyAAT owIVhcrjXOHpsH2AwYszGHQoZPrKCziVV1FSNH5UKWSmuK+QvONRc9CV3gxBfNalEHPr ND/qKHva+qN0XtjwXRdIYJBTw7bdw7bnx3QFODmNQBQUAGz7Mnq4aMADv9yuI198TwIu vFf7cNB3F83xI4klRh48/H97pygTSHa4NQTeNq3m3seo6JLjgaT6kUFgCmggBixhVLUq hfrbdwXWeK85UiITV+9ueKGtozmYfST+bBiviVZ9F9irXNjKQwi0k+yymxh7rG+uls+9 d5Pg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwsnmBA8CytXFA5lu4/VDcokQPrHCKUYt1M1T5NR3TOyK3POacH +J0VoCLMs16rpf6mXTLxNj+59mLkV2P5Pch+PJJrZxgt2dNJSw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHXypVgJOQCVysFp2iQcMnKqbVucRTB1fjeTjrt/Mt24Uhpn+Eq9ioESpHaFupOCJR/tzt7DAHJdco/r4mms2E= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:150f:b0:6d9:e8da:2de8 with SMTP id k15-20020a056830150f00b006d9e8da2de8mr1713742otp.11.1703265973359; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:26:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Patrick Robb Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 12:26:02 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Depends-on patchseries support via git-pw or patchwork To: ci@dpdk.org Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL)" , David Marchand , Aaron Conole , zhoumin , "Mcnamara, John" , Adam Hassick Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ce80a060d1c83a2" 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 --0000000000004ce80a060d1c83a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Thanks Adam for pushing this effort forward. --0000000000004ce80a060d1c83a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

As some of you know from discus= sions at DPDK CI meetings, Adam from UNH is writing a script which leverage= s git-pw, and takes as arguments a patch series patchwork id, patchwork pro= ject, 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 creat= ing our dpdk.tar.gz artifacts for testing. And, we will submit it to the dp= dk-ci repo.=C2=A0

Anyways, when we originally disc= ussed the idea, Thomas suggested that we implement the depends-on functiona= lity 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 g= ithub issue on the git-pw project in order to poll the community for intere= st in this feature, and one of the patchwork maintainers chimed in to sugge= st 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 lik= e pwclient can also receive=C2=A0the benefits.

I j= ust 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:=C2=A0https://github.com/= getpatchwork/git-pw/issues/71

Thanks Adam for = pushing this effort forward.=C2=A0
--0000000000004ce80a060d1c83a2--