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 3C52BBC8 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:49:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A825312C for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:49:35 -0700 From: josh@joshtriplett.org To: Julia Lawall Message-ID: <20150709234935.GA4789@cloud> References: <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> <20150709231131.GA4516@cloud> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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, Jul 09, 2015 at 07:35:39PM -0400, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:24:06PM -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 wrote: > > > > > > 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 0-day has enough bandwidth, sure. However, if this is going to > > encourage a large number of new contributors to quickly iterate a pile > > of patches, many of which are likely to have basic procedural issues in > > the first few iterations, then that may waste quite a lot of build time > > in 0-day. > > My understanding was that there were plenty of computational resources > available. I would think that a new contributor would like the most > assurance possible that his next attempt would be successful, and thus > would prefer to have all the information at once. Fair enough. Might as well go ahead with the full battery unless it becomes a problem. - Josh Triplett