Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists)

[josh@joshtriplett.org]

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.

- Josh Triplett