> On Feb 8, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Kavanagh, Mark B <mark.b.kavan...@intel.com> > wrote: > >> I think the example that you show is actually a pretty good example of >> how quickly we catch problems. > > Sure. At the same time though, this is a reactive approach, rather than a > proactive one, which inevitably results in more work for everyone (think > fixing broken builds, failed CI builds, root-causing issues, etc, etc.). > > If the validation can't be performed by patch authors, would you perhaps > consider setting up an automated build environment on Nicera's end? This > could be as simple as a git hook that would automatically build and test > patches that have been approved by maintainers, when they are pushed to the > upstream repo. If a test or build fails, the patch is rejected. It may be a > little bit of work upfront, but could reduce the effort involved in fixing > 'erroneous' patches, ultimately saving time for everyone.
We don't have the infrastructure to host that, but I don't think it would be difficult to get a third party to handle it. If it can't be made to work someplace like Travis, maybe Intel could host it. :-) I would suggest that an email be generated and sent to the author and the mailing list rather than revert the change, which could be difficult if further patches were applied after the commit but before the build-check completed. The Linux kernel does something similar. Shame is often a good motivator. --Justin _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
