From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 06:57:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8734ymvbds.fsf@meer.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231007-topic-test_tag-v1-1-513cd9e577ed@linaro.org>
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> writes:
> Currently, we blindly trust the submitters that they both compiled their
> code at all, tested it on a relevant device, and have done so in a manner
> that made sense for a given changeset.
>
> If at least two of these three things were always true, the review
> workflow would be much more exciting.
>
> Introduce a new Test: tag to help submitters express the way the patch
> was tested, making it easier to understand for reviewers and maintainers
> whether it was tested, and if so, whether that test was sufficient.
>
> I originally found something like this on Google's Android kernel repos
> and loved the concept.
>
> Test: make htmldocs and manual examination
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Do we really want to do this? To me, it almost seems like it codifies
the idea that sending *untested* patches is OK as long as you leave out
the tag.
Others may disagree, but I don't think we need yet another tag for this.
Testing of patches before sending them should be the norm; if special
notes about testing are needed, they can go in or below the changelog,
as appropriate.
Thanks,
jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-07 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-07 0:43 Konrad Dybcio
2023-10-07 12:57 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
2023-10-08 17:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-10-09 10:14 ` Konrad Dybcio
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8734ymvbds.fsf@meer.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
--cc=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marijn.suijten@somainline.org \
--cc=sub@coauthor.example.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox