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 3B327BC8 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:35:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3125412C for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:35:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Julia Lawall To: josh@joshtriplett.org In-Reply-To: <20150709231131.GA4516@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> <20150709231131.GA4516@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 05:24:06PM -0400, Julia Lawall wrote: > > 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? > > If 0-day has enough bandwidth, sure. However, if this is going to > encourage a large number of new contributors to quickly iterate a pile > of patches, many of which are likely to have basic procedural issues in > the first few iterations, then that may waste quite a lot of build time > in 0-day. My understanding was that there were plenty of computational resources available. I would think that a new contributor would like the most assurance possible that his next attempt would be successful, and thus would prefer to have all the information at once. julia