Re: 0 bot for Git

[Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>]

On 12 Apr 2016, at 22:49, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
> 
>> But my point wasn't to say "we already have everything we need", but
>> rather "we already have part of the solution, so an ideal complete
>> solution could integrate with it".
> 
> Yes.  That is a good direction to go.
> 
> They may already have part of the solution, and their half may be
> better than what we have, in which case we may want to switch, but
> if what we have already works well there is no need to.
> 
>> I don't know how 0 bot solves this, but the obvious issue with this
>> approach is to allow dealing with someone sending a patch like
>> 
>> +++ Makefile
>> --- Makefile
>> +all:
>> +	rm -fr $(HOME); sudo rm -fr /
>> 
>> to the list. One thing that Travis gives us for free is isolation:
>> malicious code in the build cannot break the bot, only the build
>> itself.
> 
> True, presumably the Travis integration already solves that part, so
> I suspect it is just the matter of setting up:
> 
> - a fork of git.git and have Travis monitor any and all new
>   branches;
> 
> - a bot that scans the list traffic, applies each series it sees to
>   a branch dedicated for that series and pushes to the above fork.
> 
> isn't it?

Mailing list users can already use Travis CI to check their patches
prior to sending them. I just posted a patch with setup instructions
(see $gmane/291371).

@Junio:
If you setup Travis CI for your https://github.com/gitster/git fork
then Travis CI would build all your topic branches and you (and 
everyone who is interested) could check 
https://travis-ci.org/gitster/git/branches to see which branches 
will break pu if you integrate them.

I talked to Josh Kalderimis from Travis CI and he told me the load
wouldn't be a problem for Travis CI at all.

- Lars