From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F10BE3858D39 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 10:21:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org F10BE3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1663669282; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vn9IB5EHXMiXULlXH3a4dZ+74Be0FA3/R6GX6WYIq7o=; b=g3ij0GKUI67/Q85Z/RM4ZFtYpXO9XiIHBbYO1w3KnMwzPJEwplIi8IqO1v/PXufVRw3dN8 NZAETIgtRgSJdk2Xp/CEI2FRrMdpOxxtVNhE7TkMIAjjW7FKkrMIH4vhd8c98ETpNDnoA5 TDOCI+K5Lo8H68yYJ3+7kw/n+0E0YQ8= Received: from mail-il1-f199.google.com (mail-il1-f199.google.com [209.85.166.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-164-X2WiVthvMzaIO27AtmJVfg-1; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:21:21 -0400 X-MC-Unique: X2WiVthvMzaIO27AtmJVfg-1 Received: by mail-il1-f199.google.com with SMTP id q3-20020a056e0220e300b002f5e648e02eso1329163ilv.3 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 03:21:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=vn9IB5EHXMiXULlXH3a4dZ+74Be0FA3/R6GX6WYIq7o=; b=t/R/lax6+8sKaiRFgEkRTDsofrWu/4lGG163mYgJqGYQr5n2jgwG0NOSfgkmpL0NJv t5SkQ3p1127ZaVasNVwe910GATndqkmpqobBeWiWjTb4hjNQY0klk5Q80tyx22Gi73l1 JHvivkZkXyOVF+YwRmx11vrmb+kk/ud/kAW8FR6oPq8YLW+EneY4Q9zEhHBv2TXrc9BX KQIxc1gJZcGi3LFpARgMD42tm61ViTzZZmi6FdfEDcrTJNPaEQQWZ9EAGPY6KVuf1Qp7 TfUfRo/DVDUDh9Kb/aTo5Yv9GNVqUdFj6T14xUzUXprwVhevqf40EpXaxIcVDVYy76ve Sizg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1n9cPWN4gwHxm/WlBccZcQl77RNIsGXJTfsz4lMqK4KqzJAiE8 +Ll5subu6DXBR20eIbfrVeVHbbCE0CriUGjFFxZhkzHVGoGrEJUogr11/TKJeIGbeCsl9nBZ7e0 JPelFfDYunC9863F/zd59 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3cc:b0:679:61e7:3928 with SMTP id g12-20020a05660203cc00b0067961e73928mr9085663iov.217.1663669280547; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 03:21:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4TT1Q08qXnv5lvp9gA2YwCfVDae3QVQz+JdO1B/teFESD8aYXfs8aKv0fTD+jr2L13We2ddw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3cc:b0:679:61e7:3928 with SMTP id g12-20020a05660203cc00b0067961e73928mr9085656iov.217.1663669280253; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 03:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fedora ([104.129.159.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z10-20020a027a4a000000b0034c12270863sm482212jad.80.2022.09.20.03.21.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Sep 2022 03:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 06:21:17 -0400 From: Carlos O'Donell To: DJ Delorie Cc: siddhesh@gotplt.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Run TryBot-apply_patch on the full queue? Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 03:55:51PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > "Carlos O'Donell" writes: > > The curator/runners are a more advanced "patchwork bot" framework that > > can do very specific things. > > I think it might be wise to keep the trybot API the same, though. I > mean, if we have a "patch applies" trybot, it can be controlled by the > current curator (once per patch seen) as well as by a patchwork bot that > retries all patches once a day. That makes sense. My only concern had been "how do you authenticate this?" However, after having slept a full night I realized that we need signed emails, so the curator already needs to validate signatures. The "injection" API could take signed messages too? > Both systems just need to inject the right json into the trybot's queue, > and that information comes mainly from patchwork anyway. Right. > The "do once per patch" case is still common (and important) enough to > warrant a centralized curator though. Yes. We should just accept a "signed message" API? That would reuse all the same infrastructure we have for signed emails? c.