Re: 0 bot for Git

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 12, 2016, 20:49 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqmvoypn7g.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqoa9ea7vx.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> 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.

Show 11 quoted lines

> 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?