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 B11B79D for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:59:22 +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 DB6D2246 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 19:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:59:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Julia Lawall To: "Levin, Alexander" In-Reply-To: <20160826185227.GF25341@sasha-lappy> Message-ID: References: <20160826044651.GA25341@sasha-lappy> <20160826112635.GA27627@kroah.com> <20160826121119.GA29929@kroah.com> <20160826135141.GD25341@sasha-lappy> <20160826185227.GF25341@sasha-lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Greg KH , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination - Sasha Levin List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Levin, Alexander wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:55:18AM -0400, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Levin, Alexander wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 08:11:19AM -0400, Greg KH wrote: > > > > 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! > > > > > > I'd be happy to do this as well. > > > > > > Per Greg's advice, I'm reviewing distro kernels for upstream commits that > > > they carry which should have been in our LTS trees, those commits usually > > > aren't tagged in any way and can be a good set of commits for training or > > > validation. > > > > > > I do think that we should be using the algorithm to produce a list of authors > > > and maintainers who don't provide proper tags when they should and have a > > > discussion with them about why that doesn't happen and how we can help them > > > to get it "right" (vs just using the algorithm to apply patches). > > > > Thanks for volunteering and for the suggestions. I will get back to you > > about this shortly. > > I think it's also a great opportunity to discuss the differences between the > commits Greg marked for stable and the ones I did. As with everything else we > see things differently so it'll be useful to learn more about why each of us > picked (or didn't pick) a given commit. I agree. This occurred to me also. julia