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 C10D645683; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:15:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63F14069D; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:15:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yw1-f174.google.com (mail-yw1-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524C040431 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:15:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f174.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-663dd13c0bbso43762157b3.1 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:15:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1721664939; x=1722269739; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Y58EVmA4lXAMt4UBxRZSJ0pm8Lf4iNV3jY8IpfVMuk0=; b=Z2IfvSwmaFa4Cu+rJlu3YeWyk76H+hNSlmwTh3APiW6iZedXWlbytRtzEc47oBOLLF bkMuYPxmIDkVR7NeJztjS7QpmEqaS7OTyn0Fex9i/friw8qM6TbRYJeoTdD4oCEKgH7f 0aicrG1xTpOY9qElRhCf57NPjTg+4wNfYfODM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721664939; x=1722269739; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=Y58EVmA4lXAMt4UBxRZSJ0pm8Lf4iNV3jY8IpfVMuk0=; b=k53WyW5HSL76ppKyrwkI6ojs4hRfjuwOw7i4mWUgD/fhboLx1GdSU1nEvVB1U1zL/v kAIlw0rzUgyuYwtb4vtenKkffjqmtFhXQh5dtLwix5a8/WMsWYIcYxmesm8pTR45M/Cx /e3qOljRrwDqo3XQo/q42fmByWvgFzQTXJa0Lckjl8B5FkgAEUAvOvBBshRLIK6sXP38 UwNTtrF1GQrM6SgwMrbISn5kjw6vTZJfLsEFRcBXADamxgo2oEOSkoeqCU4/j708tVb1 /8bC1j2v285Ym8nQ6itTejhfPTBhYz8npDhJSMTb2uR/d7EF4nd1IEkDDXwf/jsSWz4y LXeA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW/nKIaPRtVsUXDDZ+1LOf2fLxQA7oEWPIVvKynNeL9TrDeDjdHsqGwJG0jC+PajUUlZjXdyhmBGO+eyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwLTeJjtnFOQsVPVC9rqRnFAO5rJ2TnxYrrlZcE2NVbGWpUGsQm uWxwAzT+G/ysNogHS4g54PJTouQi8OJ19rCtw2rUQQkn/5/ACK1KxRwBKnwhbOd0YklTwbWMwC+ Lz9OsjIijSYzZxL7sZoWt3lpXY1F9KGk0Qpsvlg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEwIFyhGjFriKBgm2LnO04c5IeAoskCnpM91S7/9XRXF8IrfIlDjGOLJuQ1G/GiTj57JJne1v1dbJSenvUJoNs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:18ca:b0:e05:b9bf:4e58 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e08b57c5e07mr307026276.25.1721664939418; Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:15:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4881077.GXAFRqVoOG@thomas> <76332523-96ac-407d-b937-c1f8a99808fa@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <76332523-96ac-407d-b937-c1f8a99808fa@amd.com> From: Adam Hassick Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 12:16:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Adding Series Dependency to Patchwork To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Patrick Robb , Aaron Conole , Thomas Monjalon , ci@dpdk.org, David Marchand 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 On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 1:41=E2=80=AFPM Ferruh Yigit = wrote: > > On 7/12/2024 9:15 PM, Adam Hassick 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. > > > > I wasn't aware that patchwork has target to abstract/hide the integer > IDs, in this case since we want to enable this feature in the patchwork, > it makes sense to follow their path. > No need to push for integer IDs, that was something we thought as an > option, it is not crucial for us, we can change it. Ok, that's good to hear. I can start preparing the v2 patch to switch over to using the message IDs. > But there is another thing Stephen mentioned, perhaps using URL instead > of message ID. > Even message ID gives more data, it may still require some effort for > someone investigating the patch to access to that dependent > patch/series. But using URL gives instant access. > If using URL doesn't make like harder for the patchwork implementation, > I am for using URL. From patch developer perspective, I think providing > message ID or patchwork URL are similar level of hassle. My current implementation supports the URL format and the current DPDK format as values for the Depends-on tag. If I switch out the current DPDK format with the message IDs, then we can support both. > If we go with the URL option, does is still required to differentiate as > "patch-xxx" or "series-yyy", previously they were different IDs, but > with URL can patchwork deduce if it is series or patch? If so this can > bring a simplification. No, you can just paste the URL and the Django URL resolver will figure out whether it points at a patch or a series. No need to differentiate with the URLs. That's also true of the message ID option too. There isn't much of a point in differentiating patch/series message IDs because series do not reliably have an email associated with them. > > 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/20240617221900.1561= 55-3-ahassick@iol.unh.edu/ > > > > Does this change sound reasonable? > > > > Regards, > > Adam >