From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <ci-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F7E4561F; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:14:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F3240661; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:14:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yw1-f169.google.com (mail-yw1-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304484065C for <ci@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:14:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f169.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-64e81cd12cdso21021037b3.0 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:14:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1720815273; x=1721420073; 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=rwl6kqSW7oUwqdZ36XkmNK40Ty5WPNSe71j5ijGekck=; b=gW5iPXHMywgdaCOPwBwZTAhndduc1zNzAIqfWp+brdY3yIn2mGkaGIWgk7vkr/Oef2 2H8Nu40PW5QqDlM8+9agwrBnvTIqvIRIQeTnht7jSkKNA91ZW3Jb75iMPqDm1ZS68ilZ lepqms3UvrH20ioM8CC2M/KOqw6oMmbwACx54= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1720815273; x=1721420073; 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=rwl6kqSW7oUwqdZ36XkmNK40Ty5WPNSe71j5ijGekck=; b=l89cy1tGOSEQTEgrBZVQIR70yW34wRZMOTPJGhCdikQMWUbzIzHJ+lPh+wXj6+b9zO BRGFUrY9rhdtIc35ZV5+DwAcrLuIPvKV6sOEyYAaeA0oZRs9mM/q1OHbnW5htoi6oJw6 c9V1d+xnY+YwZaW/Y0NFp1MxwAEv9O58GchHEoqFgkIQBAkGD9AkWaqURc/KCrVMbZ5u kOzgYpMye3OlJSWhA50lWMNcZdyq8TSQ5JTAi29rAAdBMq1Vd4KTYZ/G+G3WxlSZOxBF bfuJvFyyIqmYtsOJeQJKaVV3CF9TMlgt/KO6FTQ9VwSgezW5qrTq1hoRLBsO69iGj6Xa ymYA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXpBpz8nyYJrPZ5WiEGQ6Y7Q90I9AyqtpoCiUKDOE5Q7OBsWq20CKFL7MkFLIxjrfFwQFpdlohdoFldPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxALfA0a02FuhDl5Pv7z9CVhklXUwgWsTomBqT5pvB8ik/JPaW4 Oo1hO5OfTOzGoOT5kVWZtT9JeABBcnQ43LkN7SSYKpaQwDlu8nqFDMa+vwS4Z47HgPT7d24kWCz 6P0YM5Lly164aTqfanbDlsIK3siPo6+kPj51VvA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEWo8wxUtK7duVvYUY42tvkz9tbPdmyijxmGG/nSu2Y1O0xUac2RvVoLn2q3I+CgMcXHWB+bpS3Eo7p4SnjUF0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:23c5:b0:627:e3ba:2ad7 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-65dfd0906e1mr32152607b3.9.1720815273525; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:14:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <CAC-YWqhFpn5zrZsJ_R6sUehH1FzSWpuRFpgQ-CRaG5p8NrHAbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJvnSUAi0SbZ_LRyX3R+i=RL4QBK0jQYJtrW2yHEQ+pLJ0ggxQ@mail.gmail.com> <4881077.GXAFRqVoOG@thomas> <f7t1q7c7zko.fsf@redhat.com> <CAJvnSUBfTTk8mvLHcZLyVjTebS+8M+u=Vb24=2r_SBVyD-KDnw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJvnSUBfTTk8mvLHcZLyVjTebS+8M+u=Vb24=2r_SBVyD-KDnw@mail.gmail.com> From: Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:15:22 -0400 Message-ID: <CAC-YWqhOsjumfsmvuCv=HbA0MrpoKfpj-K7L6fQKUV_tWwPzMg@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Adding Series Dependency to Patchwork To: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu> Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, ci@dpdk.org, David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> 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 <ci.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/ci>, <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/> List-Post: <mailto:ci@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/ci>, <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org 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