Message ID | 20190918195819.7492-1-stefan@datenfreihafen.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Mixed bag of rpld patches | expand |
Hi Stefan, On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:58, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote: > > Hello. > > This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting > to look into rpld and playing around with it. > > I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef > for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally > I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity. > Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address > sanitizer and coverity scan. > > Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on > the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you. > I can't deal with the github gui! I click always the wrong buttons there. Thanks for setting up this travis support, does it work like wpan-tools to push it into branch "coverity_scan"? I would like to review patches via mail, what do you prefer? What is the procedure when somebody submits pull requests on github then, somebody of us send it via mail? Sounds more work... Can we do both as "whatever you like"? Can github somehow send pull request via github to this mailinglist? Would be nice to have something to connect the whole github thing to a mailinglist and you can control it with that as well... at least the commenting system but I think this isn't possible and the new kids wants all pull request via github gui. We didn't answered this question for wpan-tools as well and I once clicked the "merge" button (actually not by accident). Also how we do that with signed off by thing? I can still fix it somehow what I did there... - Alex
Hello. On 21.12.19 00:06, Alexander Aring wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 15:58, Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting >> to look into rpld and playing around with it. >> >> I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef >> for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally >> I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity. >> Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address >> sanitizer and coverity scan. >> >> Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on >> the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you. >> > > I can't deal with the github gui! I click always the wrong buttons > there. Thanks for setting up this travis support, does it work like > wpan-tools to push it into branch "coverity_scan"? Yes > I would like to review patches via mail, what do you prefer? What is > the procedure when somebody submits pull requests on github then, > somebody of us send it via mail? Sounds more work... Can we do both as > "whatever you like"? Can github somehow send pull request via github > to this mailinglist? Would be nice to have something to connect the > whole github thing to a mailinglist and you can control it with that > as well... at least the commenting system but I think this isn't > possible and the new kids wants all pull request via github gui. We > didn't answered this question for wpan-tools as well and I once > clicked the "merge" button (actually not by accident). I do not mind any of the two methods. Getting Github and mailing lists working together is to big of a task on its own for such a small project to tackle in my opinion. Given the low volumes of patches we are seeing on wpan-tools and maybe also rpld I would not mind if we say that we accept both ways. Mailing patches as well as pull requests. That would ease the contributions for some people I hope. And while it puts a bit more burden on us it should not be to hard given the low volume. > > Also how we do that with signed off by thing? I can still fix it > somehow what I did there... Signed off by makes only sense if we have a document descriping what we mean by it. If we want it and use the one from the kernel we need to communicate this clearly. If not, the sign offs are off no use. regards Stefan Schmidt
Hi Stefan, On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:58:13PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting > to look into rpld and playing around with it. > > I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef > for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally > I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity. > Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address > sanitizer and coverity scan. > > Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on > the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you. > > Stefan Schmidt (6): > build: test various names for our lua dependency > send: make sure we check on scope id usage > ci: travis: initial setup for CI testing with Travis > config : fix leaks on error paths > socket: make sure we close our socket if setsockopt() fails > send: ensure we free the buffer after sending the message I tested the patch series and so far it still compiles on my machine. Reviewed-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com> on all patches. - Alex
Hello. On 09.01.20 23:38, Alexander Aring wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:58:13PM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >> Hello. >> >> This series does really not have any theme, besides me starting >> to look into rpld and playing around with it. >> >> I had to fix meson for my lua detection and make sure the ifdef >> for SCOPE_ID is honoured. After getting it all building locally >> I added Travis support and submitted builds to Coverity. >> Afterwards I did a quick run through the reports from address >> sanitizer and coverity scan. >> >> Not sure if you would prefer review for rpld as patches here on >> the list or as pull requests on github. Up to you. >> >> Stefan Schmidt (6): >> build: test various names for our lua dependency >> send: make sure we check on scope id usage >> ci: travis: initial setup for CI testing with Travis >> config : fix leaks on error paths >> socket: make sure we close our socket if setsockopt() fails >> send: ensure we free the buffer after sending the message > > I tested the patch series and so far it still compiles on my machine. > > Reviewed-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com> > > on all patches. Thanks. I landed them in master now. regards Stefan Schmidt