I was distracted by my trip to Linuxworld (trip report:
http://lula.org/pipermail/lula_lula.org/2008-August/015218.html )
but am still slowly making progress on the patch
robot. It now looks at all mime parts of a message,
and properly flags messages with multiple patches
attached as violating lis
I've written some code for the chroot, though it has proven to be harder
than I taught it would, especially because of all the development tools
and libraries that need to be copied into the chroot.
Right now it will only work on Gentoo, other distributions will require
some fine-tuning of paths, e
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My understanding is that Valgrinding alone takes much more than 25
>> minutes already.
>
> Well, you could throw more hardware at it.
That's the option I like.
> Alternatively, if most patches are good, then you could te
Francois Gouget wrote:
>
> There you have to take into account that for the past week we've had an
> average of 56 patch submissions per day. So if you want the bot to keep
> up it means it must spend less than 25 minutes on each patch. But if you
> want to have a little bit of room for growth
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 5:09 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what should really happen is that patches that fail the validation don't
> even make it to wine-patches, they get bounced to the submitter. Of
> course the bot needs to be reliable enough for this not to become a
> nuis
"Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * to Alexandre to use as a replacement for wine-patches so he'd have
>> more information about each patch.
>
> If he asks for it. (Maybe he'll be happy with the web site.)
what should really happen is that patches that fail the validation don't
even
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd send the results to:
> * a website so everyone can see the status of each patch and how
> backlogged the bot is (especially when people send a series of 30
> patches at once).
Yes.
> * to Alexandre to use as a
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So all the bot has to do is to run git-blame on each failure line to get
> its unique id, then check the unique id against the list of
> known/allowed (intermittent) failures, and only fail the patch if the
> failure is no
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:
[...]
> Question: where should the results go?
> I could put them up on a web site
> and/or email them to the patch's author
> and/or email them to a dedicated mailing list (e.g.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> and/or email them to wine-devel.
I'd send the results to:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Zachary Goldberg wrote:
[...]
> Its really ironic that you post this today as just yesterday I was
> contemplating the same thing, and not only doing a compile check but
> also a run of the test suite
One problem is that you need an X server, preferably on real hardware to
ple
Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Its really ironic that you post this today as just yesterday I was
>> contemplating the same thing, and not only doing a compile check but
>> also a run of the test suite and valgrind.
>
> Yeah, that'
Dan Kegel wrote:
> Sounds great. Want to implement that and send it
> my way? It'll take me a while to get the kinks worked
> out of the script, it'd be nice to have a hand with the chroot.
> - Dan
OK, I'll try it. I have a lot of experience with the OS's architecture so
it should be ready soon
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Its really ironic that you post this today as just yesterday I was
> contemplating the same thing, and not only doing a compile check but
> also a run of the test suite and valgrind.
Yeah, that's the end goal. Gotta wal
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ambroz wrote:
>> To me, a script that builds just
>> every patch is a serious security flaw; I suppose it wouldn't
>> be very hard for someone to send a naughty patch
>> that would take control of your machine.
>
> True.
>
>> I
Ambroz wrote:
> To me, a script that builds just
> every patch is a serious security flaw; I suppose it wouldn't
> be very hard for someone to send a naughty patch
> that would take control of your machine.
True.
> I suggest you make it build patches in a chroot
> as a regular user, and copy ove
Dan Kegel wrote:
> What I have so far is a script that watches wine-patches
> and applies each patch to current git, then builds,
Just where are you going to run that? To me, a script that builds just
every patch is a serious security flaw; I suppose it wouldn't be very hard
for someone to send a
After some discussion with Jeremy and Alexandre
about how nice it would be to have some automated
way to check patches before Alexandre commits them,
I decided to have a go at creating one.
What I have so far is a script that watches wine-patches
and applies each patch to current git, then builds,
17 matches
Mail list logo
