On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:18:13PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > - My general assumption is that putting this bot on github.com/torvalds/linux > would not be useful, as this will probably result in more noise than signal. > I expect that subsystem maintainers would prefer to configure their own > GitHub projects so they can have full control on what kind of CI prechecks > must succeed before the series is sent out. Is that a valid assumption, or > should I be working towards having a single point of submission on each > forge platform (Github, Gitlab, etc)? What ever repo you put this on, it's going to take constant maintenance to keep it up to date and prune out the PRs that are going to accumulate there, as well as deal with the obvious spam and abuse issues that popular trees always accumulate. Linus has already said to not do it on his "tree", and I offer a full "all branches" kernel mirror on github as well, but I don't want to be responsible for this type of mess. So perhaps you get a new kernel.org "mirror" account somehow and put it there? But again, someone will be responsible for keeping it alive and clean, a thankless task that will take constant work. > - We can *probably* track when patch series get applied and auto-close pull > requests that are accepted -- but it's not going to be perfect (we'd > basically be using git-patch-id to match commits to pull requests). Or is it > better to auto-close the pull request right after it's sent to the list with > a message like "thank you, please monitor your email for the rest of the > process"? The latter is much easier for me, of course. :) Auto-close is the only way to do this, otherwise someone will have to go back and clean it up on their own. Again, who is going to do that? thanks, greg k-h
