[PATCH] add basic b4 config file

[PATCH] add basic b4 config file

[Quentin Schulz]

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.

Because we do not have anything to check for now, disable needs-checking
so patches can be sent without running b4 prep --check.

Because we do not have any auto-to-cc support (and the implicit one
using scripts/get_maintainer.pl cannot work for us), also disable
needs-auto-to-cc so patches can be sent without running b4 prep
--auto-to-cc.

[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>
---
I'm wondering if we couldn't add some per-patch check as well, checking
that the documentation builds for each for example. Could be added in a
later patch though. Any idea?
---
 .b4-config | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/.b4-config b/.b4-config
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f87f61b58519862da44fd9af6e6d0018edc7dc2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.b4-config
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+[b4]
+  send-series-cc = docs@lists.yoctoproject.org
+  prep-pre-flight-checks = disable-needs-auto-to-cc, disable-needs-checking

---
base-commit: 6b44257874858db3aa426d3e84a79c41cb4937a3
change-id: 20240524-b4-support-d5e749251bba

Best regards,
-- 
Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>

Re: [docs] [PATCH] add basic b4 config file

[Antonin Godard]

Hi Quentin,

On Thu Jan 23, 2025 at 3:31 PM CET, 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.
>
> Because we do not have anything to check for now, disable needs-checking
> so patches can be sent without running b4 prep --check.
>
> Because we do not have any auto-to-cc support (and the implicit one
> using scripts/get_maintainer.pl cannot work for us), also disable
> needs-auto-to-cc so patches can be sent without running b4 prep
> --auto-to-cc.
>
> [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>
> ---
> I'm wondering if we couldn't add some per-patch check as well, checking
> that the documentation builds for each for example. Could be added in a
> later patch though. Any idea?

I would agree but a docs build already takes a while, so I think a single docs
build for the b4-managed branch would be enough. Don't know if that's possible
though.

> ---
>  .b4-config | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/.b4-config b/.b4-config
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f87f61b58519862da44fd9af6e6d0018edc7dc2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/.b4-config
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +[b4]
> +  send-series-cc = docs@lists.yoctoproject.org

Why not send-series-to?
This is what we instruct users to do in the readme, and in the contributor
guide.

> +  prep-pre-flight-checks = disable-needs-auto-to-cc, disable-needs-checking
>
> ---
> base-commit: 6b44257874858db3aa426d3e84a79c41cb4937a3
> change-id: 20240524-b4-support-d5e749251bba
>
> Best regards,


Antonin

-- 
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: [docs] [PATCH] add basic b4 config file

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Antonin,

On 1/23/25 4:33 PM, Antonin Godard wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
> 
> On Thu Jan 23, 2025 at 3:31 PM CET, 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.
>>
>> Because we do not have anything to check for now, disable needs-checking
>> so patches can be sent without running b4 prep --check.
>>
>> Because we do not have any auto-to-cc support (and the implicit one
>> using scripts/get_maintainer.pl cannot work for us), also disable
>> needs-auto-to-cc so patches can be sent without running b4 prep
>> --auto-to-cc.
>>
>> [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>
>> ---
>> I'm wondering if we couldn't add some per-patch check as well, checking
>> that the documentation builds for each for example. Could be added in a
>> later patch though. Any idea?
> 
> I would agree but a docs build already takes a while, so I think a single docs
> build for the b4-managed branch would be enough. Don't know if that's possible
> though.
> 

We could run linters or something like that. Anyway, can be added later 
on if we find it can be helpful to mitigate some issues :)

>> ---
>>   .b4-config | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/.b4-config b/.b4-config
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f87f61b58519862da44fd9af6e6d0018edc7dc2
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/.b4-config
>> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
>> +[b4]
>> +  send-series-cc = docs@lists.yoctoproject.org
> 
> Why not send-series-to?
> This is what we instruct users to do in the readme, and in the contributor
> guide.
> 

Because the author of this patch hasn't read the README in a while and 
most often uses Cc: instead of To:.

I think the same thing can be said for my OE-Core and BitBake patches. 
At least it seems to be consistent on which one to use between Cc: and 
To: :)

I'll wait a bit for reviews on other patches, specifically 
https://lore.kernel.org/poky/20250123-b4-support-v1-1-4841f52eccbb@cherry.de/ 
and will send a newer version that changes them to To:.

I see now that the BitBake doc patches need to be Cc for 
docs@lists.yp.org and To: for bitbake-devel@oe.org... Those are handled 
by different b4 calls, so I would need to handle those differently, 
maybe I can have a To: for both :) ? What do you think?

Cheers,
Quentin