Re: Reducing the noise level of build error notifications to 0

[Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Greg,

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 08:44:20PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:50:31AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > [switch to LKML]
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 06:47:32PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 09:16:46AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Hi list,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sorry if this pile of build errors disturbed you too much. If
> > > > the error notification is too permissive, I can limit it in two ways:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) only notify build errors on the first kconfig. There may be a few
> > > >    new error messages show up in the other kconfig builds, however
> > > >    mostly are just irritating duplications.
> > > 
> > > Duplicates should be suppressed, they are just annoying.
> > 
> > OK!  I'll suppress noises in four ways:
> > 
> > rule 1: all newly shown-up error messages will be only notified for
> >         the current commit and remembered to be "known bug" thereafter.
> > 
> > rule 2: when one bad commit triggers build errors in multiple kconfigs,
> >         only one of them will be CCed. The patch author will still get
> >         full information in private emails.
> > 
> > rule 3: when one bad commit triggers build errors in the _subsequent_
> >         innocent commits of the same branch, the emails will be sent
> >         to myself for manual check first. This will inevitably lead to
> >         more delays (esp. when I'm sleeping), however 2+ bad commits
> >         should not happen frequently.
> > 
> > rule 4: gcc/sparse warnings will never be CCed. Only private email
> >         notifications will be sent to the author.
> > 
> > The above rules should be able to reduce the noise level close to 0
> > for maintainers and public mailing lists.
> > 
> > The commit author may still see some noises, however the good thing
> > is, he should be able to tell signals from noises much easier than
> > the others.
> 
> How about also cc: not only the author where you mention it above, but
> everyone who signed-off on the patch?  That would provide a bit of peer
> pressure to ensure that the problems get fixed.

That's (interesting and) good point. If me understand you right:

- TO: author, CC: Signed-off-by, CC: (sub-)subsystem mailing list
  for build errors

- TO: author, CC: Signed-off-by (but sure, remove the top level busy maintainers)
  for gcc warnings

- TO: author
  for sparse warnings (however I'm still too afraid to enable sparse checks)

> Oh, and thanks for working on this, it's much appreciated.

Thank you :)

Regards,
Fengguang