On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:46:00AM +0200, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> >Bots are starting to overwhelm actual content from human beings
>> >on this list, and I want to put my foot on the brake right now
>> >before it gets even more out of control.
>> I think we're just hitting the limitations of using a mailing list. Bots
>> aren't around to spam everyone for fun, right?
>> 0day bot is spammy because patches fail to compile, syzbot is spammy
>> because we have tons of bugs users can hit and the stable bot is
>> spammy because we miss lots of commits that should be in stable.
>> As the kernel grows, not only the codebase is expanding but also the
>> tooling around it. While spammy, bots provide valuable input that in the
>> past would take blood, sweat and tears to acquire. We just need a better
>> way to consume it rather than blocking off these inputs.
>As one of the primary abusers of the "I send too much email" flood of
>mess, I'm going to start cutting down on what type of message I respond
>to a public vger list from now on. I'll write more on the stable@ list
>about this, but for your individual patches like this, how about just
>responding to the developers themselves and not a public list? I do
>that when I commit a patch to my tree, stripping out lists, as it's not
>a useful message for anyone other than the person who wrote the patch
>and the reviewers.
I think we should have a discussion as to the best way to "spam" people.
There are a few alternatives I can think of (a "digest" mail once a
day/week? Web UI? different mailing list?) but we keep using the one
size fits all approach for all our bots.
I don't see a reason why we can't tailor bot output based on
maintainer/author preference? Maybe David would be less upset if he'd
see just one mail per week with commits we ask to review?
We're stuck with mailing lists for kernel development, might as well
make the best out of it.