Adding Series Dependency to Patchwork

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 7/23/2024 4:36 PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:31 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/22/2024 5:28 PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 12:15 PM Adam Hassick <ahassick at iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I want to highlight again for the ci group that all
>>> dependencies will be series dependencies, regardless of whether
>>> "patch-xxx" or "series-yyy" is used. If a patch message id or url is
>>> submitted, it will be mapped to its series url for the dependency.
>>>
>>
>> Are you planning to keep the 'patch' or 'series' part, why not change
>> the syntax as:
>>
>> Depends-on: <message-ID>
>> or
>> Depends-on: <patchwork URL>
>>
> 
> Good point. Yes, there is no reason to keep the "patch" or "series"
> prefix to the value.
> 
>>
>> And is there a benefit to support both "message-ID" and "patchwork URL",
>> so why not just:
>> Depends-on: <patchwork URL>
>>
> 
> Maybe Adam can answer, but I think his intention was to support both
> formats, to provide more flexibility for users.
>

I am not sure if this flexibility is required, I am feeling it can be
simpler to support one.
And parser can convert form one to another if it is required at some
point by the tool.