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 1C4DFAAE for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:24:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09E1C165 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 17:24:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Julia Lawall To: josh@joshtriplett.org In-Reply-To: <20150709210059.GA3720@cloud> Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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, 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? julia