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

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

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.

> 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.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

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