Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH v2] add basic support for b4 contribution workflow

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2025-02-05 at 14:38 +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> On 2/5/25 2:34 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-02-05 at 14:11 +0100, Quentin Schulz via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > On 1/17/25 11:44 AM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > > > From: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
> > > > 
> > > > b4[1] is a very nice tool for mail-based contribution. A config[2] file
> > > > exists to set up a few defaults. We can use it to set the Cc recipients
> > > > to always add, in our case the mailing list.
> > > > 
> > > > This also adds a wrapper script that is called by b4 to figure out which
> > > > addresses to put as Cc recipients. Considering that patches to the doc/
> > > > directory also need to be sent to the yocto-docs mailing list, this
> > > > wrapper handles that. A limitation of the script (lsdiff actually) is
> > > > that it doesn't know how to handle empty files, but those should be
> > > > of rather rare occurrences.
> > > > 
> > > > While the wrapper script should be enough by itself to add the bitbake
> > > > mailing list to the Cc recipients, one still needs to manually run b4
> > > > prep --auto-to-cc for that to happen. Therefore, let's add an explicit
> > > > send-series-cc so that at least that mailing list is always there.
> > > > 
> > > > Because we currently do not have anything to check for patch validity,
> > > > remove requirement for b4 prep --check to be run before sending a patch
> > > > series, via disable-needs-checking in prep-pre-flight-checks.
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://pypi.org/project/b4/
> > > > [2] https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/config.html
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>
> > > > ---
> > > > This adds a basic config file for b4 to avoid to have to add the mailing
> > > > list by hand.
> > > > For documentation patches, the additional mailing list will be added
> > > > when running b4 prep --check, as is required for each new series managed
> > > > by b4.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that b4 supports patchwork, c.f.
> > > > https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/config.html#patchwork-integration-settings
> > > > though I have no clue what it does with it as I am no maintainer, but
> > > > maybe something worth having a look at if some maintainer of this repo
> > > > wants to use b4 to merge stuff?
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - add b4-wrapper for auto-detecting patches that are to be sent to the
> > > >     docs mailing list as well,
> > > > - disable forced b4 prep --check for each b4-managed series,
> > > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240524-b4-support-v1-1-0c4334c36cc7@cherry.de
> > > > ---
> > > >    .b4-config    |  4 ++++
> > > >    b4-wrapper.py | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >    2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/.b4-config b/.b4-config
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b699f204c414099f2118ffdbc9f7b24454e4a4e
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/.b4-config
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> > > > +[b4]
> > > > +  send-series-cc = bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > > > +  send-auto-cc-cmd = ./b4-wrapper.py send-auto-cc-cmd
> > > 
> > > All the above should be to instead of cc, will fix in next version.
> > > 
> > > @Richard, is the b4-wrapper.py below (this one for BitBake and not
> > > Poky!) fine in BitBake git repo? I believe it should since it needs to
> > > be called even when one develops from "vanilla" BitBake git repo and not
> > > poky combo repo. Just asking for confirmation here (and maybe you want a
> > > different name too?).
> > 
> > I guess the location is ok but can we call it b4-bitbake-wrapper.py
> 
> b4-wrapper-bitbake.py to follow the same naming scheme as for the one
> for poky that is stored in OE-Core maybe?

That makes sense, might as well try and be consistent :)

> > please? This is so that if someone sends patches, it is clear which
> > wrapper the patch is against. Top level files in repos can sometimes
> > get interesting for that, even if b4 should be helping make sure the
> > right patches go to the right lists in future!
> 
> One could have the interesting idea of contributing patches to the 
> b4-wrapper-bitbake.py script without using b4, so a unique name across 
> the code bases makes sense to me.
> 
> Looking at it, do we want the script to be in contrib/ in BitBake repo 
> maybe?

I'd wondered about that and would be fine with it. It would reduce
"clutter" in the top level directory which already has too many files
to me!

Cheers,

Richard