From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE6B22C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB9723A for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:52:43 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: David Woodhouse Message-ID: <20160726155243.GC30628@roeck-us.net> References: <1468115770.2333.15.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <146834264.pgPOSbOmkO@vostro.rjw.lan> <1468119600.19833.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1469540111.120686.314.camel@infradead.org> <57976941.2040308@roeck-us.net> <1469543609.120686.319.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1469543609.120686.319.camel@infradead.org> Cc: James Bottomley , Trond Myklebust , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:33:29PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 06:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > We really should have more of an expectation that new code should be > > > submitted *with* test cases. After all, it's not like people are > > > generally submitting code that's *entirely* untested. It's more that > > > testing is ad-hoc, and sometimes depends on running on specific > > > hardware. But even the latter can often be fixed, with appropriate test > > > harnesses. > > > > > > > Worthy goal, but knowing developers I am quite concerned that it would result > > in (possibly much) less kernel contributions. In addition to contributions > > from unaffiliated individuals, there is a lot of code in vendor trees which > > is not upstreamed today. Demanding test cases for upstreaming would for sure > > make the interest in upstreaming that code even lower than it is today. > > Sure, but I did say an *expectation* rather than a hard requirement. We > are nothing if not pragmatic. > Ok, makes sense. > Having the *infrastructure* in place, and plenty of existing examples, > would make this a whole lot easier for submitters. And also might be a > good proving ground for people who would otherwise be doing precisely > the kind of 'trivial' patches which are often problematic... > Now that sounds like an excellent idea! Guenter