aiaiai script set up

[Keller, Jacob E]

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 12:45 +0400, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> On 05/16/2014 11:58 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 11:25 +0400, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> >> On 05/16/2014 10:24 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 20:10 +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:02 +0400, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/15/2014 04:34 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Maxim,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> just FYI, we have a mailing list nowadays, although it is scarcely
> >>>>>> populated anyway: aiaiai at lists.infradead.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are archives, etc. Let me CC it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jacob was using e-mail based work-flow, not sure if it is still the
> >>>>>> case, so I'll let him answer :-)
> >>>>> looks like answer is separate process with:
> >>>>> aiaiai-email-dispatcher -v  .../queue "aiaiai-email-test-patchset ..."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> at lest it began work for me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> question is gone.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, you use the aiaiai-email-dispatcher for scheduling, and it calls
> >>>> the aiaiai-email-test-patchset. Note that we have a lot of changes
> >>>> currently in the devel branch that I am getting ready to push into
> >>>> master, that will somewhat change how this command is run, but I think
> >>>> the overall changes are beneficial (moves a lot of configuration into
> >>>> the cfg file instead of on the command line options...)
> >>> Right, user-friendliness should be improved with your latest changes,
> >>> thanks!
> >>>
> >> Yes, also it will be good to detach it from kernel builds so that
> >> verifying patches
> >> for other projects should be also possible.
> > Well, the whole thing was created just for the kernel. I am not sure it
> > is feasible to extend it to anything else, but if someone comes up with
> > a set of patches, this can be done, theoretically, although quite
> > frankly, I am a bit skeptical about this. But, "patches talk, bullshit
> > walks" as they say :-)
> >
> As I understand the only thing is needed is to remove make defconfig. So 
> that user can define
> which command to use for building. At least it worked in my case for 
> master branch.
> 

I have a few patches in the works which add "build" types such as
kernel, standard make, and ./configure builds. Fully extending this to
ANY build system would be non-trivial, but not impossible. I used this
to allow building of ethtool, but I haven't yet posted this series to
the devel branch yet.

Thanks,
Jake