From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0599E95A63 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 12:57:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343741AbjJGM5G (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2023 08:57:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41364 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1343680AbjJGM5F (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2023 08:57:05 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43629B6; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:281:8300:73::646]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DECE07C0; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 12:57:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net DECE07C0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1696683424; bh=Q/1XW57KSxFZsvTueCHp+MJQ8+S0TrgP3bKSsrznURk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=E6s5KCew+0oR5T02HoU+z/vbCC4hlRj58p3KKnR99rYHbGyESaGnU9KkXmQtGNVZd qy1HVSqaqvGQAmJW3LCa/JSfkeHihd6GfTIpQ9Fqz2EnRYWeGfT9mCy0l3dNi9mTi+ NlTbvhjjsxBZZCHg1yMc49znmFkBF5p4XiFgkTIST2c7FGZNypEGZigqhhEUWAJpg4 +9bov3mOOEr4aOPwhBXXB8joULig7bn/RJD4G39/IoceyTud2uCoH3f/XGc6Sc838O pGb0dDwNNkU7vPmFYUcjqzeicHQ4a05S3WbTxY1ajtr+/a1y5F9cDQdDp+EC1oE27/ UHPMNGMRL9jTA== From: Jonathan Corbet To: Konrad Dybcio Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Baryshkov , Bjorn Andersson , Marijn Suijten , Konrad Dybcio , Submitting Co-Author Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag In-Reply-To: <20231007-topic-test_tag-v1-1-513cd9e577ed@linaro.org> References: <20231007-topic-test_tag-v1-1-513cd9e577ed@linaro.org> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 06:57:03 -0600 Message-ID: <8734ymvbds.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org Konrad Dybcio 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 > --- > 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