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 148A9ABA for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A06114 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:23:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:23:21 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Fengguang Wu Message-ID: <20150712182321.GB18191@x> References: <2879113.fraeuJIr2M@avalon> <20150709193718.GD9169@vmdeb7> <20150709201127.GA3426@cloud> <20150709203830.GF7021@wotan.suse.de> <20150709210059.GA3720@cloud> <1436518482.2393.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150712020235.GB24356@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20150712051958.GA15346@x> <1436689193.2344.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150712104807.GA7111@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150712104807.GA7111@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Cc: James Bottomley , 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 Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 06:48:07PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 09:19:53AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sat, 2015-07-11 at 22:19 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:02:35AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:54:42AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 14:00 -0700, 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". > > > > > > > > > > We already have this with the 0 day project. The only difference being > > > > > the patch has to be in a tree for it to get tested. It's not impossible > > > > > to imagine a bot that would pick up a patch, apply it (giving automated > > > > > rejects as email replies), and leave it in for the 0 day tests to > > > > > assess ... sort of like patchwork but with an automated tree build. We > > > > > could periodically throw away the tree (say weekly) because the job of > > > > > the bot would be to find initial rejects rather than build a workable > > > > > tree. > > > > > > > > That's a good point. Up to now 0-day only takes care of code in git trees. > > > > We've collected 500+ developers' git trees so far, however their coverage > > > > looks not enough -- there are 3000+ kernel developers in last year's git log. > > > > > > > > To achieve 100% code coverage, we'll also need to watch emails in the > > > > kernel mailing lists, auto convert patch series there to git branches > > > > for 0-day and other testers, and auto reply results to the original > > > > mailing list's email thread. > > > > > > > > That would be a natural fit for the email based patch submission path > > > > and review process. > > > > > > > > The potential problem, however, is "git-am to which base branch?" > > > > That's where it may go messy. > > > > > > Patch submitters should be making it clear to what tree their patch > > > applies, preferably using an unambiguous tag in the mail subject. In > > > the absence of such a tag, try it against torvalds/linux.git and > > > linux-next.git, and then give up and tell the submitter to specify what > > > their patch applies to. > > > > To be honest, the mailing list it's sent to mostly identifies which tree > > it should be going in. There's difficulty over whether the for next or > > for current branches ... but we have that today as well. > > Yes, mailing list would be a very good hint. > > Another clue can be the index part of all git emails > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > ==> index 3ba5044..f5c8983 100644 > --- a/Makefile > +++ b/Makefile > > That object id may help identify the possible BASE branches for the > email patch. Due to my limited knowledge of git, I can only think > about a brutal force (but still affordable) way to iterate all the > well known branches to find the possible BASE branches. That's a good idea. - Josh Triplett