On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 05:39:30PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > Tom has indicated that he would like Patman to move out of his tree. I > suggested on another thread[1] that I maintain it in my 'sjg' tree, so > here is a new thread to discuss this. > > I have already done this for the qemu/efi/coreboot scripts as Tom has > NAK'ed patches for those. > > For the other tools there is going to be quite a bit of churn, as I > would like to resolve most of the many Python warnings. > > Given the shared source between the tools, it would be easier for me > to do the same for buildman, binman and qconfig. I am thinking that I > might try a move to allow Gitlab pull-requests for reviews on these as > well as the mailing list, if that is useful. > > For tools which need to sync back to Tom's tree (i.e. not patman), I > or Tom could do a pull request every now and then, omitting any > changes that relate to pylint. > > Please let me know your thoughts. The timing is good as I am going to > be sending out a new Patman feature in the next few weeks and it is a > few thousand more lines of code.
My biggest objection to all of this is that you should NOT use sjg.u-boot.org as that perpetuates your abusing owning u-boot.org. As I said in the thread, it should be under https://source.denx.de/u-boot/ somewhere and you should be the one to own it there. They should be managed like normal python projects and we could "pip install" what's needed. But yes, I do think them being managed like a regular python project instead will make your life, and also the rest of the communities life, easier. Un-bundling binman and making it a standalone tool might help make it easier for other projects to utilize it instead of reinventing the tooling themselves. I'm not sure why buildman and qconfig would need to be pulled out, but if it's just a matter of a "pip install", sure, fine. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
