[OE-core] Patchwork & patch handling improvements

[Martin Jansa]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:01:40PM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:47:20 Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:49:50AM +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > Hi Trevor,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:35 Trevor Woerner wrote:
> > > > On 11/26/15 16:00, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > > > > I'm also
> > > > > trying to ensure that the patch validation is generic enough so it can
> > > > > live in OE-Core, and thus we can easily update and refine it over time
> > > > > in
> > > > > line with the code itself as well as encourage submitters to use the
> > > > > script on their own changes before sending.
> > > > 
> > > > This all sounds like an improvement and is therefore a step in the right
> > > > direction :-)
> > > > 
> > > > A while back I had the idea of "porting" the kernel's "checkpatch.pl" to
> > > > The Yocto Project (it was around the same time that I was trying to
> > > > float the whole "Maintainers File" idea too, since I was also trying to
> > > > re-purpose "get-maintainer.pl" as well). About one minute into that
> > > > effort I realized the existing *.bb files were all over the place in
> > > > terms of the order of statements and the order of the blocks of
> > > > statements. At that time I found one recipe style guide from OE, and
> > > > another one from The Yocto Project, each of which described a slightly
> > > > different preference. So I asked on the mailing list and quickly
> > > > discovered that both groups prefer a different style.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not saying this job isn't worth doing, but I am pointing out there's
> > > > the potential for feathers to be ruffled on both sides if someone tries
> > > > to produce a definitive style guide for recipe files and then enforces
> > > > it in an automated way. Since it is the OpenEmbedded Project's job to
> > > > provide the recipes for The Yocto Project, I'm guessing this question
> > > > needs to be decided by them? If that sounds reasonable, then maybe The
> > > > Yocto Project needs to acquiesce to OE's decision?
> > > 
> > > I don't think there's that much of a division. I don't recall if it was
> > > you
> > > that raised it at the time but the issue of having two style guides did
> > > get
> > > rectified - I changed the one on the Yocto Project wiki to simply be a
> > > link to the OE style guide in June last year. It certainly didn't come
> > > about through a conscious decision to have a different style.
> > > 
> > > However there is a minor disagreement over indentation for shell functions
> > > between OE-Core and other layers - this persists because of the
> > > backporting
> > > pain a blanket replacement would potentially lead to. As I recall this did
> > > get discussed at the OE TSC level. I think that's one thing we could just
> > > not evaluate (or make an option) until such time as we resolve the
> > > difference - and I do mean to see it resolved at some point in the
> > > future.
> > 
> > Using consistent indentation (4 spaces) at least for new metadata would
> > be step in right direction.
> > 
> > With the amount of changes which are backported to older releases I
> > still don't see this "backporting pain" argument. Doing it just before
> > the release is of course useful, because e.g. now more changes will be
> > backported to Jethro than to Fido or Dizzy. So having consistent
> > indentation in Jethro and master would prevent 95% of "backporting
> > pain". Maybe some Yocto 10.0 will finally get the meaning of
> > "consistent" indentation.
> 
> I agree it's not ideal. I said above, I do want to see it resolved.
> 
> Leaving indentation aside for a moment do you have any comments on my 
> proposal?

I'm not familiar with FDO fork, so I don't know how it looks and
behaves, but any improvement on patchwork side is definitely welcome and
I appreciate it.

Does it support e.g. moving the patches to given bundle based on some
substring in subject? To sort e.g. meta-networking, meta-java,
meta-browser, .. patches automatically?

I don't expect FDO fork to provide other features I'm used to from
gerrit like cherry-picking to selected branch from the UI or doing the
review there. But still if we're stuck with patchwork forever (because
some people hate gerrit), then any improvement is really appreciated,
thanks for looking into it.

My only concern is about migrating current database, do you know if the
migration will keep the database including bundles as they are or do you
plan to set FDO version in parallel at least for some transition period?
Currently I have many patches in flight, because jenkins is running full
test-dependencies job for last 11 and based on progress it will take
14-21 more days to finish.

Regards,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20151202/1777619a/attachment-0002.sig>