Re: [LTP] [PATCH 0/7] docparse improvements

From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
To: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 0/7] docparse improvements
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 12:20:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cznkoxyc.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YX+6iWEzwaTqbYua@yuki>

Hello,

Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi!
>> > Still working on a prototype based on tree-sitter would take a week or
>> > two worth of time and I would like to get the metadata fixed now, so
>> > that I can finally move on with runltp-ng. So I would slightly prefer
>> > merging the patches for the current solution first, then we can have a
>> > look on tree-sitter in the next LTP release cycle. What do you think?
>> 
>> I think there is a small risk
>> 
>> 1. It turns out that with tree-sitter it would make more sense to use a
>>    different meta-data format.
>
> What do you have in mind? I do not think that we should dramatically
> chante the json structure we do have now.

Whatever tree-sitter produces most naturally and requires the least
amount of massaging.

>
>> 2. Someone starts building on the current solution without realising it
>>    might change
>>
>> Of course this can be mitigated by saying that the implementation and
>> format are subject to change.
>
> My approach here is to build the runltp-ng as a set of reusable
> libraries, one of them would be a parser for the metadata that would
> provide interfaces for the common queries. That makes the metadata an
> intermediate format that could evolve over time. On the other hand I do
> not expect big changes in the metadata format.
>
>> Note that in general I think it's best (on bigger projects) to have an
>> alternative branch for big changes where one needs to "rush" to an
>> end-to-end solution. Most likely we need an alternate branch for
>> integrating runltp-ng and the executor.
>
> We can even do this in a separate github repository or whatever works,
> but still we have to agree on general direction.
>
> I still think that the best solution here is to apply this patchset and
> put the tree-sitter on TODO. Unlike tree-sitter this is neither big nor
> radical change and it would allow us to proceed with other stuff that
> has been blocked for several releases at least.

As discussed in IRC, I prefer the route of trying either Sparse or
Tree-sitter first to produce the metadata. However please go ahead and
make the decision. After all once we have better automation it will
reduce the burden on reviewers.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp