On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 05:51:33AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > After seeing a few of your messages that begin with "Coverity > complains ...", I appreciate them a lot. Earlier I was naively > hoping that triage-and-hand-off-to-original-author would be much > less work but no, we very much need to somehow find a way to push > the triaging part to individual topic authors or this thing will not > scale. Yeah, there's definitely some human intelligence needed to pick apart Coverity (and I probably only end up reporting a portion of what it mentions; some are just nonsense, and some are old and probably unimportant issues). OTOH I basically end up triaging them when they hit 'next' anyway. So unless there are a lot of topics that hit 'jch' but never make it to 'next', it's really just moving the workload around in time. The thing that would increase workload is if I end up spending time on patches whose issues would have been caught during regular review (or maybe even already were, racing with them making it into 'jch'). > Perhaps I can control the rate of topics that trickle into 'jch' > from 'seen' to keep them a bit more manageable somehow? > > If an iffy topic that begins its life in 'seen' gets rerolled number > of times while there, but after the final reroll before getting > merged to 'jch' (because it was marked as "Will merge to 'next'?" or > better in the What's cooking draft), it never gets rerolled until it > hits 'next', then your workload would not change compared to the > days back when you built yours on 'next'. So, yeah, this. The rate of topics entering is not so big a deal as the quality of topics when they make the transition to jch. As you note... > Of course, the question then becomes "who will vet these topics so > that they do not need a big reroll before it hits 'jch'?", and we > are back to square one? ..this work still has to happen somewhere. But I think people reviewing and discussing patches is one way that the load is spread out. If review settles down on a topic then maybe that's a sign it's ready to be looked at. Of course the effort to look at Coverity could be spread out, too. It's just hard to do because their interface is closed-ish (everybody needs to make their own account, we can't share links, etc). And also because there's a coordination problem. I mostly look at the "new defects since the last build" list since there's so much old noise. But I don't know how I'd mark an uninteresting issue as "I looked at this, and nobody else needs to". I guess if we had a bot that sent a summary of Coverity results to the list, that thread could be a central point for discussion. But their notification emails have no details; most of the richness is in their web interface. I think it would be hard to condense that into an email that would be useful to people. But maybe I could mine it with a script or something. I dunno. I think there are possibilities there, and if the results were incredibly useful I'd be more excited about spending time on it. ;) For now let's try it with me following jch and see how that goes. -Peff
