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 5235C4264B; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 22:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320AC4027D; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 22:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CBF40271 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 22:22:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B293200902; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:22:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1695846129; x=1695932529; bh=N7mq9/Tef0e7v765miCZSZ16qtEzoBJhC/b 8dGIjlVc=; b=u02j57Y7DcQ//KWOi7jKnmyKqcSUnO/41s2A0htBvB36tZo7O6n 6TYt1I42NC9/Jcy32/CbpxsPcWRvhu0RzRVclOyRdHjdqvqTozb6Yv/OF3z7G1pk viGusTgqh1xe0DbVMkteuqaqlCZpN86IRrE23BNpwP5Z9AIUJ9iiAmeK0iiQu9dT nhbG7fdIyl0Fy7EjOZrQyDT72X6u0g8zCnCjtaWbAChREfJinkRlfm5uZc5tGvgn WdDyhDsVF7YHmcN32ozzbTh5uRpsYH5M0FZr6gurc8ZguG/rOp7yNTIIfszLhstH yZfQpxmufTeQmHKbYkr2PcFbe8dmAQ9gBAw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1695846129; x=1695932529; bh=N7mq9/Tef0e7v765miCZSZ16qtEzoBJhC/b 8dGIjlVc=; b=arcmgXpdxZCRTE0ufN4Hh2b/5pkv4mhEZlwz2bjMb1JFJWQnivw IICJ3NKBybnVpmswl4AAfANkHWEfh/xqcu7aVnnMl2FC9PifJARwpLtS+qrnSS6m WDHgwrZ0l9YVJhLrKjPkTquTCy1S//flCRKt9IzwxZrdHB+4xlk+DZej8e+q7TaU rpoJlm773/M+7+8D/AVAAiv1ttC6qbSrnG/U29oe6LRvv2IysajIqxeyoU6PUyIV oUku3OrRmEC/Uj4bjM7CtD2EHeN4igtgIqcgqi0KMDf2k0wfQdrf6/ZQjvLs7LpX FG0k0UqNFAo68xZOFFwWoqlGhVFSEcbwuAQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvjedrtdeggdekhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedttdeljeejgeffkeekkedtjeevtdehvedtkeeivdeuuedviedu vdelveejueejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:22:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Patrick Robb Cc: ci@dpdk.org Subject: Re: Apply Patchseries Script Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 22:22:07 +0200 Message-ID: <26230939.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 27/09/2023 18:31, Patrick Robb: > Hello all, >=20 > The Community Lab is reviewing and rewriting some parts of our (currently > 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 the > 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 fr= om > 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 n= ow > 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 verify > with the community that our current assumptions regarding the apply > patchseries process are appropriate and should not be tweaked. Assumption= s: >=20 > 1. There are two inputs, A. The pw series url and B. The branch output of > 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 submission > 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. > 4. If the cover letter contains =E2=80=9Cdepends-on,=E2=80=9D extract the= 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 better > for the CI community, we could stop maintaining a dedicated script for the > apply process, try moving the pw-client, and direct our efforts at patchi= ng > pw-client with the goal of adding support for features like depends-on. A= re > 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.