[pca] confirming the validiting of a home grown patch_order file

[Thomas Gouverneur]

Hi Martin,

 - I've fixed the header for PCA to admit the date parsing (i hope at
   least ;))

 - I've also fixed the multiple-release present, it now take the
   biggest release of a patch present into every dependancy.

Now, for bad patches, I got some trouble making "the rule" to add
them...

For example, the patch 120272-12 which is marked as dependancy for some
other actual patches. Although, it is WITHDRAWN and so marked as bad
patch... The -08 version has been re-instated, although it's obsoleted
by the -13 release.

So, whenever there is a bad patch, should I look at the first upper
revision which is not a bad patch ? is it safe to do that ?

Any other remark ?


Regards,

Thomas

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:25:15 +0100
Martin Paul <martin at par.univie.ac.at> wrote:

> Thomas Gouverneur wrote:
> > I've tried to make a PoC for all this...
> 
> You're quick :)
> 
> Can you please change the header in the generated xref file to match
> the one from the original, ie:
> 
> ## PATCHDIAG TOOL CROSS-REFERENCE FILE AS OF Jan/26/12 ##
> 
> PCA is quite picky with the syntax of the first line and won't accept
> the file if it doesn't match. You can put the "FOR BUNDLE xxx" part
> into another comment line (they are ignored by PCA).
> 
> Even in a simple example with just one patch on the list, which pulls
> in a kernel patch, I once again realized how complicated all those
> patch dependencies have become, and how difficult it is to prove
> correctness. One thing I noticed is that the xref file contains lines
> like "119254|14|Jan/01/70| | | |  ||||". It seems as if the xref
> creator doesn't check whether a patch has already been included with
> a higher revision, and then adds these half-empty lines. When
> different patches require different revisions of some other patch,
> only one line with the newest required revision should be included.
> 
> I also saw a bad patch ("B") included in the xref file (120272-12). I
> guess the script should look for the patch which obsoleted it and
> include that one instead.
> 
> The format of the lines themselves seems to be OK. Are you generating
> them from your patch database or are they taken from your archive of
> patchdiag.xref files?
> 
> Guess that more people have to try that with real-world examples to
> see whether the output makes sense and delivers a patch set which can
> indeed be applied. Trying to analyze that with a handful of
> theoretical samples seems just too complicated and cumbersome.
> 
> Martin.
> 


-- 
Thomas Gouverneur
 _____           _      
| ____|___ _ __ (_)_  __
|  _| / __| '_ \| \ \/ /
| |___\__ \ |_) | |>  < 
|_____|___/ .__/|_/_/\_\
 Network  |_|       SPRL
   TVA: BE6836018011

T: +32 498 23 00 40
W: http://espix.net
M: <thomas at espix.net>