[U-Boot] RFC - PatchTrack Specification (revised)

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Wolfgang,

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Andy,
>
> In message <004e01cd6a51$57d5ff70$0781fe50$@pont at sdcsystems.com> you wrote:
>>
>> I have been and had a look at the specification that you have posted and am
>> happy to get my hands dirty helping with implement and test this.
>
> Thanks in advance.

And a big thanks from me too :)

Before we 'dig in' and implement it, we really need to make sure that the
specification:

  a) Accurately describes something that will address the current problems
     we are experiencing in maintaining U-Boot
  b) Not, as far as we can currently tell, have scalability issues
  c) Be flexible enough to grow

>> I know that a good proportion (possibly even all of it) could be implemented
>> in Python but is there a preference or consensus on what would be the best
>> language to do it in?
>
> Speaking for myself, I have no strict preferences.

Me either

> It may make a lot of sense to look into existing code - much of what
> we neeed (mail processing, collecting follow-ups, Acks etc.) is
> already availabe in PatchWork - can we re-use this code instead of
> re-inventing the wheel?

Exactly. As Patchwork is Python, it makes sense to keep going with
Python for PatchTrack

However, I was thinking that PatchTrack would have a modular design and
implementation and that we should not restrict the language that the
modules are written in. Although, this may come later. In particular,
I can well imagine some of the 'static tests' being implemented as
simple shell scripts

Regards,

Graeme