This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch queue and reviewing (Was Re: Generator programs can only be built with optimization enabled?)
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Manuel López-Ibá?ez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, matz at suse dot de
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:09:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: Patch queue and reviewing (Was Re: Generator programs can only be built with optimization enabled?)
- References: <448E652E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <448F8170.firstname.lastname@example.org> <96F5A03B-F997-4859-BD28-F71727B6313B@apple.com> <20060614185149.GF21013@synopsys.com> <A2CF6C09-888D-4F85-AA24-E88A8274D48B@apple.com> <email@example.com> <449192D5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4491996B.email@example.com> <20060615175530.GA2342@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
> > I know, for example, SuSE has such a build farm that is accessible by
> > email (IE you email patches to it).
> > If they were willing to let the patchapp submit emails (or xmlrpc or
> > whatever), and there was a way for it to notify the patchapp about the
> > results (xmlrpc or http post would be fine), that would be ideal.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:55:30PM +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> there are several problems with the idea. With the current setup, we
> cannot make the testers available to public for security reasons.
> Testing each patch takes several hours, so for larger-scale usage we
> would need to dedicate more machines to the task than we do now. Also,
> the testers need some maintenance -- 1-2 hours each month for me, but
> this would obviously go up with the more intensive usage. I do not
> think it would be possible for SuSE by itself to accomodate for these
This is understandable. In any case, it would probably best to have
a human in the loop before submitting patches to autobuilders, both
for security reasons and as a sanity check, to avoid wasting resources
on an unacceptable patch. Machine donors (maybe SuSE?) would authorize
a small number of people to submit patches to the auto-builder after
an initial review.
I'm now starting to get a clue as to why Mike talked about a review before
the auto-builder instead of after. Maybe the pre-review would just be
a very cursory sanity check, with the real review to happen after it
> Perhaps in the cooperation with other companies interested in gcc, we
> could put together enough hardware and developer time to realize this
> idea (don't take it as promise of anything from the SuSE side, though --
> I have very little say regarding that). I think it might be good to
> discuss it at gcc summit.
If people like the concept, but there's a shortage of dedicated equipment,
perhaps donations can be solicited.