Apply Patchseries Script

[Aaron Conole]

Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> writes:

> 27/09/2023 18:31, Patrick Robb:
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> The Community Lab is reviewing and rewriting some parts of our (currently
>> internal) apply patchseries script. The reasons are:
>> 
>> 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 “depends-on patch” applying (like
>> ovsrobot is doing currently)
>
> Yes would be fantastic.
>
>> 3. Some DPDK project processes have changed (like moving next branches from
>> 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 now
>> 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. Assumptions:
>> 
>> 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.

+1

>> 4. If the cover letter contains “depends-on,” 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 patching
>> pw-client with the goal of adding support for features like depends-on. Are
>> 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.