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

[Julia Lawall]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, josh at joshtriplett.org wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:24:06PM -0400, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, josh at 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 at 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