workflows.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
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>,
	Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:14:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d84fd2f3-f633-464e-8205-9442d4ec89df@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVf+bVj8at_GsHhRzHuDFbYGMmutOofMz1Ekv3TTxP4Qg@mail.gmail.com>

On 8.10.2023 19:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 2:57 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Exactly. We are already receiving too many untested patches.
> 
>> 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
> 
> +1
> 
>> notes about testing are needed, they can go in or below the changelog,
>> as appropriate.
> 
> +1
> 
Okay, I see your points, let's forget about this..

Konrad

      reply	other threads:[~2023-10-09 10:14 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
2023-10-08 17:18   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-10-09 10:14     ` Konrad Dybcio [this message]

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=d84fd2f3-f633-464e-8205-9442d4ec89df@linaro.org \
    --to=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org \
    --cc=andersson@kernel.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.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