Re: Adding Series Dependency to Patchwork

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>]

On 7/19/2024 4:32 PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
> My view is that if the patchwork project is trying to get away from
> integer based series dependencies and use a more authoritative key
> like the message ID when associating series, we should follow suit in
> terms of DPDK submission guidelines. So I think the "Depends-on:
> <20240712120000-1-user@example.com>" format sounds fine.
> 
> But, obviously this will require a policy change and update to the
> DPDK submission guidelines, so I'm curious what others outside of UNH
> think.
> 

I am not much worried of the changing PDK submission guidelines, this is
not used very actively anyway, so impact will be low.


> I will add it to the discussion list for next Thursday's CI meeting.
> 
> Thanks Adam.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 4:14 PM Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We've gotten a review of our initial submission to add the dependency
>> parsing to the Patchwork dashboard. Stephen recommends that we change
>> our format to use the message ID of patches or cover letters rather
>> than the ID of the patch or series in the database. So, instead of
>> adding a dependency by adding "Depends-on: series-5678" one would add
>> "Depends-on: <20240712120000-1-user@example.com>". We can keep the
>> option of using the patchwork web URLs that was discussed in the
>> original issue on GitHub.
>>
>> The main reasoning for this is that our format doesn't make it clear
>> exactly what the dependency is or where it's found outside of the
>> context of Patchwork. This discussion can be viewed here:
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/patchwork/patch/20240617221900.156155-3-ahassick@iol.unh.edu/
>>
>> Does this change sound reasonable?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Adam