From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C5DBACC for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DAF232 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:46:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1436478389.3324.192.camel@infradead.org> From: David Woodhouse To: Julia Lawall , josh@joshtriplett.org Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:46:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <559C73DF.2030008@roeck-us.net> <20150708114011.3a1f1861@noble> <2879113.fraeuJIr2M@avalon> <20150709193718.GD9169@vmdeb7> <20150709201127.GA3426@cloud> <20150709203830.GF7021@wotan.suse.de> <20150709210059.GA3720@cloud> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 17:24 -0400, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 10:38:30PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:11:27PM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org w > > > rote: > > > > Bonus if this is also wired into the 0day bot, so that you also > > > > find out > > > > if you introduce a new warning or error. > > > > > > No reason to make bots do stupid work, if we really wanted to > > > consider > > > this a bit more seriously the pipeline could be: > > > > > > mailing-list | coccinelle coccicheck| smatch | sparse | 0-day > > > -bot > > > > That would effectively make the bot duplicate part of 0-day. Seems > > easier to have some way to tell 0-day "if you see obvious > > procedural > > issues, don't bother with full-scale testing, just reject". > > Not sure to understand. Isn't it better to have the most feedback > possible? If we're talking about encouraging new contributors, then probably not. You don't necessarily want a lot of negative feedback from different places, all at once. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation