I'm not sure yet. I've poked the issue thread about whether they need our help with anything and what the next steps are.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote: > On 12/22/2023 5:26 PM, Patrick Robb wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > As some of you know from discussions at DPDK CI meetings, Adam from UNH > > is writing a script which leverages git-pw, and takes as arguments a > > patch series patchwork id, patchwork project, and pw token, and produces > > a project artifact for CI testing purposes. Starting in January we will > > use it for applying patches to DPDK and creating our dpdk.tar.gz > > artifacts for testing. And, we will submit it to the dpdk-ci repo. > > > > Anyways, when we originally discussed the idea, Thomas suggested that we > > implement the depends-on functionality by contributing to the git-pw > > project, as opposed to implementing the depend-on support in the create > > artifact script itself. Adam did create a github issue on the git-pw > > project in order to poll the community for interest in this feature, and > > one of the patchwork maintainers chimed in to suggest that rather than > > implementing the feature on the client side via git-pw, it should simply > > be implemented for patchwork itself. That way if it's patchwork server > > side and exposed via the api, other client side tools like pwclient can > > also receive the benefits. > > > > I just wanted to flag this on the ci mailing list so that anyone with > > thoughts could submit them on the Github issue, which you can find > > here: https://github.com/getpatchwork/git-pw/issues/71 > > <https://github.com/getpatchwork/git-pw/issues/71> > > > > Thanks Adam for pushing this effort forward. > > > > Thanks Patrick for the update and thanks Adam for driving this. > > Implementing support to patchwork sounds good to me, is anything > expected from our end for this? > >
