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

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 14:00 -0700, 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".

We already have this with the 0 day project.  The only difference being
the patch has to be in a tree for it to get tested.  It's not impossible
to imagine a bot that would pick up a patch, apply it (giving automated
rejects as email replies), and leave it in for the 0 day tests to
assess ... sort of like patchwork but with an automated tree build.   We
could periodically throw away the tree (say weekly) because the job of
the bot would be to find initial rejects rather than build a workable
tree.

James