From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:11:19 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Julia Lawall Message-ID: <20160826121119.GA29929@kroah.com> References: <20160826044651.GA25341@sasha-lappy> <20160826112635.GA27627@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, "Levin, Alexander" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination - Sasha Levin List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 01:55:27PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > Not sure if I was clear about what I was asking you to agree to :) > > Basically, we can take the patches sent to stable and the patches not sent > to stable as a training set, but then the machine learning comes up with > some algorithm that produces some results. An expert is needed to evaluate > the results. Ie for a thousand (number chosen at random) patches, if the > algorithm says it is a bug fixing patch, is it or isn't it, and vice versa. > Of course, we could also evaluate on patches that previously have and have > not been sent too stable, but there is a problem there, because our goal is > to have more patches sent to stable than are already being sent there, so we > need to show that the algorithm can capture what humans are missing. I think that is very interesting research and I would be glad to help out with it how ever I can, as the result might be very useful for us. So sign me up! thanks, greg k-h