On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > (Cc'ed Julia) > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:33:01AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > >On 10/06/2017 08:10 PM, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote: > >> We are experimenting with using neural network to aid with patch > >> selection for stable kernel trees. There are quite a few commits that > >> were not marked for stable, but are stable material, and we're trying > >> to get them into their appropriate kernel trees. > >> > > > >Apart from the practical which has been covered, I'd be interested > >in hearing about the details of how this works if you can share > >them. > > This work is based on Julia's work > (https://soarsmu.github.io/papers/icse12-patch.pdf) to identify > commits that fix bugs. > > Essentially, my approach to this is to extract as much information as > possbile form the commit, including things such as: > > - How many times a certain word appeared in the message > - Who is the author > - Code metrics > - etc > > In my case, I end up with about 30,000 of these "inputs", and train a > neural network based on whether a given commit was included in a > stable tree or not. > > This approach has a few drawbacks compared to the one Julia > described in her paper: > > - Not every bug fixing commit ends up in stable (some end up in -rc > fixing a bug from the current merge window). > - Same as above, but for commits we miss and fail to add to stable. > - Sometimes commits get added to stable even though they don't follow > the rules at all (security fixes are a simple example). > > But it does seem to be effective at finding bug fixing commits that > should be in stable. > > At this stage we are still trying to figure out what a "bug fixing" > commit really is. For example, an observation we recently made was > that the code metrics actually don't have much weight in determining > whether a commit should be in stable or not. > > As we just started, I'm still experimenting with a few approaches, and > I belive Julia is waiting for a new student to take over this, so we > don't have any big insights to share just yet :) That's a good summary of the current status. Thanks! julia