[External] Re: New test for patches in openbmc/openbmc

[Ed Tanous]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 1:31 AM Lei YU <mine260309 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's noticed that the `repotest` is enabled in CI and we got CI
> failure due to node-manager's patch:
> https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/47673
>
> I know the right way is to ask Intel to upstream the node-manager and
> fix the issues we met.
> But in reality it's not easy and it takes time for Intel to upstream a
> repo (and it depends on Intel to decide whether or not to upstream)

If this is something you need, there's no need to wait for Intel, as
that application already has an Apache 2 license.  You are free to
upstream it and maintain it yourself if you don't want to wait for
intel.

>
>
> @Ed Do we really want to reject such patches?

I don't want to reject patches, I want to see them on master in a way
that things can be changed as needs evolve.  This patch is a perfect
example of something that, had we taken the small amount of time to
upstream this small daemon, wouldn't have even been an issue now as
sdbusplus needs to make a very minor change.  As-is, we're effectively
2 levels of fork deep (openbmc upstream -> intel-bmc -> openbmc
upstream only for bytedance systems, which is the source of the
problem, not this patch itself.

>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:37 PM Lei Yu <yulei.sh at bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I have a similar case.
> > > > As an x86 system, some of the recipes/changes are referenced from
> > > > Intel-BMC, which is not upstreamed.
> > > > Currently, we had patches related to UART routing and
> > > > phosphor-node-manager-proxy.
> > > > The UART routing patches are being upstreamed thanks to Troy.
> > > > The change to node-manager is related to the HW design difference, and
> > > > due to the fact that phosphor-node-manager-proxy is in Intel-BMC, we
> > > > can not really make the patch upstream.
> > >
> > > I'm not following why that's preventing upstreaming.  If
> > > node-manager-proxy is something you need on your systems, I don't see
> > > a reason why we would avoid cleaning it up and upstreaming it, but I
> > > have no details on what this patch is, or what it does, so it's really
> > > hard to talk in concrete terms about how to proceed next.
> >
> > node-manager-proxy is in Intel-BMC, so we really need Intel to
> > upstream it into openbmc.
> >
> > --
> > BRs,
> > Lei YU