Hi folks,
I was wondering if the upstream would be receptive to adding a
'Tested-by' tag for patches that had someone give tested feedback on the
list.
Personally, what I consider a bar for giving a 'Tested-by' is, when
someone:
- Applies a patch or a series (following the iterations as needed,
over time) locally, compile them, spend time understanding the
functional change in question, and its implications.)
- Do a concrete test (w/ either a Python API or a `virsh`-based
command-line) that exercises the said code path.
- *Post* the above test procedure / and necessary outputs as evidence
to the list, in reasonable detail. (Not a: "yeah, I tested and it
works" -- this isn't a 'rule'; it can have exceptions)
>From a quick glance, in its 10-year history, libvirt upstream had about
a mere 21 entries of 'Tested-by' tags:
$ git log | grep Tested-by | wc -l
21
I bring this up because, when someone spends effort following (sometimes
over weeks / months) a patch (or a series) from the list, gives
reasonably detailed test feedback, in my books, it would be fair to
acknowledge it in the Git. And it will encourage them to spend time in
future.
---
I realize that if it's not automated (via Git hooks or similar), it can
become "lossy", i.e. if Joe posts v1 of a patch, you give a 'Tested-by',
then there are two scenarios that immediately spring to mind:
(1) Joe respins a v2 to make some corrections, adds your 'Tested-by'
tag, and whoever applies the patch picks it up -- all good.
(b) However, if a v2 was _not_ necessary, then whoever is applying the
patch / series must remember to add the tag -- "lossy".
Thoughts / remarks / rotten tomatoes welcome.
--
/kashyap
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
