On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:55:50AM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > 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". I don't think that's a big deal really, QEMU has been doing this for years. If you post a vNNN of your patch, you are responsible for adding the tags. When the sub-tree maintainer accepts your patch they add any outstanding tags, as well as their own S-o-B. This is little work compard to actually applying & testing the patch before pushing it > Thoughts / remarks / rotten tomatoes welcome. I'd like to see us formally adopt the signed-off-by approach for all patches as a mandatory thing, along with the associated contributor convenant. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
