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 051F1413 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f67.google.com (mail-pa0-f67.google.com [209.85.220.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A729ED for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f67.google.com with SMTP id cf3so4146718pad.2 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:38:45 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Laurent Pinchart Message-ID: <20160728223845.GI16852@dtor-ws> References: <20160725190125.GS5537@wotan.suse.de> <5486315.Z6uhQZYKqJ@avalon> <20160728205324.GB5642@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <2443703.ScQNYO34Bz@avalon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2443703.ScQNYO34Bz@avalon> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Nominating Fengguang Wu - 0-day List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:59:13PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Fengguang, > > On Friday 29 Jul 2016 04:53:24 Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 07:15:22PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Wednesday 27 Jul 2016 22:50:27 Fengguang Wu wrote: > > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:23:43PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > >>> On 25/07/2016 at 21:01:25 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote : > > >>>> It surprises Fengguang Wu hasn't been > > >>>> nominated yet, so I'd like to nominate him. The mechanical process > > >>>> should probably include in the future a scrape for top Reported-by > > >>>> contributors. > > >>> > > >>> That's a good point. > > >>> > > >>>> Fengguang's 0-day infrastructure is invaluable to day to day kernel > > >>>> development, having him present would be great for any questions that > > >>>> may come up. Getting a statistical overview / update of impact / any > > >>>> major architectural changes of the 0-day infrastructure would also be > > >>>> very useful. If maintainers are not yet using 0-day it would be great > > >>>> to hear why. If your contributors are not using 0-day (I know some of > > >>>> you exist) I'd like to know why you don't use it, I often run into > > >>>> issues on linux-next which at times I have to fix, if 0-day would have > > >>>> been used a folowup fix would not have been needed. > > >>> > > >>> Well, I think it would also help to know how the patch/git tree > > >>> selection is done. Lately, I've been receiving less reports from 0-day > > >>> and some issues were found by Arnd's autobuilders after hitting > > >>> linux-next. I used to get report of compilation breakage 10-15 minutes > > >>> after the patch submission. > > >> > > >> Yeah sorry about that! There are many things that can impact 0-day > > >> system's stability: regressions, hard disk replacement, proxy issues, > > >> mailing list kicking off, vocations, etc. Which should improve over > > >> time as we add monitoring and self-test facilities. On the other hand, > > >> if you find such issues, please don't hesitate forwarding the error > > >> emails to us, so that we can check and take action quickly. > > > > > > There's no need to apologize, really. You've done and keep doing an > > > amazing work for which we're all thankful. The biggest problem I see that > > > would stop me from fully relying on 0-day is the lack of information about > > > such downtimes, leading me to wonder if the absence of a report really > > > means that everything is fine. A 0-day status page with information about > > > the current status and the planned downtime, as well as possibly the list > > > of trees covered by 0-day (I don't know whether part of that information > > > could be considered as confidential), would help a lot. > > > > For that purpose you may subscribe to the BUILD SUCCESS notification > > by sending me an "opt-in" email with your tree URL. > > > > That notification will be sent 1-2 hours after each branch's git push, > > which contains the build test progress on that branch. Based on which > > (or missing of it) you'll know if everything is on the track. > > I know that such a feature exists, but I'm not sure all developers would > appreciate the additional e-mail traffic. That's why I proposed a status page > that could be polled when needed. I for one really appreciate that I do not need to poll anything and instead I am notified when stuff that I pushed passed/failed some tests. So, even if there are status pages and what's not, please do keep opt-in email notifications. Thanks Fengguang! -- Dmitry