Re: 0 bot for Git

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]