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
prev parent 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