[PATCH] aiaiai: allow defining checkpatch.pl location

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 16:04 +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 08:43 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:57 +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 13:26 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 12:39 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > > > From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller at intel.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Instead of hardcoding the checkpatch.pl script into the repository, use the
> > > > > in-kernel script by default unless the user specifies a path with
> > > > > --checkpatch option. Additionally add an email.cfg option for specifying
> > > > > checkpatch.pl per project.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A future patch will remove the external checkpatch.pl binary included in this
> > > > > project.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller at intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > This looks generally like a good idea to me.
> > > > 
> > > > However, I think that we should do something similar for the coccinelle
> > > > scripts. Indeed, why carrying a private copy of them?
> > > > 
> > > > Doing this only for checkpatch.pl would be an incomplete step.
> > > > 
> > > > So we'd also need an option for coccinelle, similar to the --checkpatch
> > > > that you introduce.
> > > > 
> > > > And my thinking that may be it would be better to introduce a --upstream
> > > > option which would specify the upstream branch name, or tag, or commit
> > > > ID, or another refspec. Aiaiai would pick checkpatch.pl and coccinelle
> > > > scripts from there.
> > > > 
> > > > Or it could be a path to the upstream tree. And Aiaiai would pick
> > > > checkpatch.pl and coccinelle scripts from there.
> > > > 
> > > > I am not sure which is better. The latter is certainly easier to
> > > > implement.
> > > > 
> > > > I can try to implement one of these, which one do you prefer? I find
> > > > both useful, but would vote for the second one.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I think the second option is definitely simpler, but doesn't make it
> > > easy to obtain a particular version of a file... We could support using
> > > git-archive, tho this does require a new version of git (1.7.9.5)
> > > 
> > > That might be more work than necessary though.. I just don't like that
> > > the 2nd method requires ensuring that the tree is already at the correct
> > > version.. It's not a huge burden though.
> > 
> > Yes, you are right, the first one is cleaner. So let's assume the fist
> > one is the way to go.
> > 
> > I guess this would be about:
> > 
> > 1. cloning the tree to a temporary location, just as we do now
> > 2. if the upstream refspec was given, resetting to that refspec.
> > 3. copy checkpatch.pl and coccinelle scripts to tmpdir
> > 4. resetting the tree to the base commit (coming from --commit)
> > 
> 
> Why clone the tree? There's a much saner way to do this.

But this is what we do anyway as the very first step in
'aiaiai-test-patchset': we clone with --shared.

However, an extra checkout would indeed probably cause delays.

> git --git-dir="path" show ref:scripts/checkpatch.pl > backup
> 
> This way we don't have to make an entire clone of the tree. We can do
> this also for coccinelle scripts too, though I htink archive is saner
> for this, and works much better as long as the remote isn't a web URL,
> since some remotes have disabled git archive support, but it works fine
> for non git:// urls.

Yes, definitely, I'll check this, thanks for the idea!

> Excellent other than using git-archive. I suggest either fallback incase
> it's not available or something maybe?

Well, I like the idea of programs doing exactly what I asked. I want
Aiaiai to use the upstream version of the tools, I do not want it
silently fall-back to the 'tree-under-test' version.

So I'd vote for not doing this. What do you think?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy