From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9FEC49ED7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org [140.211.169.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 695A620693 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="FBAwbrSu" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 695A620693 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from mail.linux-foundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22939CD3; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BAD63EE for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:34:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C028A2 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:8a0:6be4:9301:a728:6099:33:a27c]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAB08325; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:34:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1568392485; bh=K8gOQxOcWJu3IyXo8VIA5Fl4toULtVUKNL9ZTJL5US0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=FBAwbrSurlPI5IpkArDcRclCpyVKqAIYvGeoabGZ8ZOMJ1eZpB/oXToJEm098u/ES BJ/aDUdYkRNc0TXZKppkho8ZqjfyMenQ64Qln5eArlmIUc7UDfTDpLe9CsNFHO0OOz hrENweUJ0Z1yzi+stj83s7GU20qx/mzm0TJUgrF4= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:34:37 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <20190913163437.GA17711@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20190911150804.GA10046@mit.edu> <20190912120602.GC29277@pure.paranoia.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190912120602.GC29277@pure.paranoia.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Reflections on kernel development processes X-BeenThere: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Errors-To: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Hi Konstantin, On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:06:02AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:08:04AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Many of you attended Dmitry Vyukov's talk at the Kernel Summit track > > today, "Reflections on Kernel Development Process, Quality, and > > Testing". (For those of you who haven't, the slides are available > > here[1].) > > > > [1] https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/4/contributions/554/attachments/353/584/Reflections__Kernel_Summit_2019.pdf > > > > Greg K-H has suggested, and I strongly agree, that it would be > > worthwhile to add this to the agenda of the Maintainer's Summit. In > > particular, what next steps should we take and what should be the > > criteria and the process for trying to further standardize our tools > > and processes in order to make make our development processes more > > mature and to improve developer productivity and happiness. > > > > If you didn't attend the talk, I encourage you to take a look at the > > slide, so we don't have to spend time trying to bring people up to > > speed on the discussion to date. My plan is to schedule this as our > > first topic tomorrow afternoon. > > To follow-up, this is a very rough outline of a proposal that I am going > to submit to the Foundation in hopes to fund maintainer tool > development. It follows along some of the lines highlighted in Dmitry's > talk. > > -------- > > # Stage 1 (Normal brain): "local patchwork" > > - Implement a mutt-like tool ("putt"?) that uses locally cloned > public-inbox archives to track patches/series submitted to mailing > lists > - Pre-filters by keywords and paths in patches > - Tracks and automatically inserts taglines > (Reviewed-by, Acked-by, Tested-by) > - Can ignore a patch/series until it sees certain taglines > (Tested-by: zeroday bot, Reviewed-by: Trusty Intern) > - Automatically tracks latest series and offers an interdiff view > between series revisions ("show me what changed between v1 and v2") > - Allows responding to patches and conversations a-la mutt > - Allows applying patches/series to local repos Do you plan for this tool to support shallow clones ? Some mailing lists have really high traffic an have been around for years, one may not want to clone a full public-inbox archives when interested in patches submitted for the last N months only. > # Stage 2 (Enlightened brain): "now with CI and workflows" > > - Add configurable workflow functionality allowing maintainers to run > local or remote tasks on patches and series, before maintainer sees > the patches, e.g.: > - Create a branch and attempt to apply series > - If succeeds, run a batch of CI tests > - If succeeds, mark as "CI passed" and show the maintainer > - If fails, reject automatically using a "sorry, tests failed" > template, including relevant error messages > > - All of the above runs outside of the UI tool ("putt-cid"?) and defines CI > routines that can run in cloudy environments or locally using > containers. > - Putt communicates with putt-cid locally or remotely to identify > patches/series that the maintainer should review > > > # Stage 3 (Galaxy brain): "email as a secondary channel" > > - Support additional distributed communication mechanisms in conjunction > with existing mailing lists. > - SSB is a peer-to-peer replication framework that has built-in > cryptographic integrity and attestation ("immutable git-like > chains per participating developer") > - offers native support for structured data like bug reports, CI > results, code review comments, etc. > - can easily support email-to-SSB and web-to-SSB bridges, so > developers can choose to participate using familiar tools > - has known limitations in v1 of the protocol, but v2 is being > actively developed to address them. > - or we can take it as a base and develop an SSB-like protocol that > better suits distributed development needs. > > - Radicle is another interesting alternative that creates a mechanism > for automating some maintainer tasks by defining "state machines," > e.g.: > - automatically merge a revision if all tests pass and at least 2 > Reviewed-by's are seen. > - May have been sipping the blockchain cool-aid a bit too much > ("Immutable append-only records"). -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss