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 8DF71B1B for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 04:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1257E190 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 04:35:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 12:34:34 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: josh@joshtriplett.org Message-ID: <20150711043434.GA24356@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> 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> <20150709231131.GA4516@cloud> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150709231131.GA4516@cloud> 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 04:11:31PM -0700, 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. 0-day has good enough bandwidth, now and future. :) > 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. 0-day can reasonably handle that kind of load. Feel free to push code 10 times per day. It'll run all build/boot tests on the latest branch HEAD until test completion or new HEAD arrives. Thanks, Fengguang