Hi Wolfgang, On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Andy, > > In message <004e01cd6a51$57d5ff70$0781fe50$@p...@sdcsystems.com> you wrote: >> >> I have been and had a look at the specification that you have posted and am >> happy to get my hands dirty helping with implement and test this. > > Thanks in advance.
And a big thanks from me too :) Before we 'dig in' and implement it, we really need to make sure that the specification: a) Accurately describes something that will address the current problems we are experiencing in maintaining U-Boot b) Not, as far as we can currently tell, have scalability issues c) Be flexible enough to grow >> I know that a good proportion (possibly even all of it) could be implemented >> in Python but is there a preference or consensus on what would be the best >> language to do it in? > > Speaking for myself, I have no strict preferences. Me either > It may make a lot of sense to look into existing code - much of what > we neeed (mail processing, collecting follow-ups, Acks etc.) is > already availabe in PatchWork - can we re-use this code instead of > re-inventing the wheel? Exactly. As Patchwork is Python, it makes sense to keep going with Python for PatchTrack However, I was thinking that PatchTrack would have a modular design and implementation and that we should not restrict the language that the modules are written in. Although, this may come later. In particular, I can well imagine some of the 'static tests' being implemented as simple shell scripts Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot