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

[Lei Yu]

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 1:35 AM Ed Tanous <edtanous at google.com> wrote:
>
> 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

Totally agree. We have already asked Intel to upstream the
node-manager, let's wait for the feedback.

> 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.

True. But as an Intel x86 platform, the repo is needed and in the
current state, the patch has to be added. Otherwise the g220a build is
broken.
Is it OK to ignore the repotest CI failure and just merge the patch in
meta-bytedance layer?
(Be noted that it's not trying to make a bad example, but only trying
to fix the broken build)