On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:22:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue Mar 19, 2024 at 12:42 AM EET, Stefan Berger wrote: > > On 3/18/24 14:48, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 02:36:05PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > >> This series adds support for the NIST P521 curve to the ecdsa module > > >> to enable signature verification with it. > > > > > > v6 of this series is still > > > > > > Tested-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks. > > This has been discussed before in LKML but generally tested-by for > series does not have semantical meaning. I believe that notion is outdated. It seems to be becoming the norm that maintainers apply patches with "b4 am --apply-cover-trailers", which automatically picks up Acked-by, Reviewed-by, Tested-by and other tags sent in-reply-to the cover letter and adds them to all patches in the series. Consequently, providing such tags in-reply-to the cover letter is not unusual and nothing to object to. If Herbert applies patches with "b4 am --apply-cover-trailers" or "b4 shazam --apply-cover-trailers" (I don't know if he does), it is completely irrelevant whether Stefan strips my Tested-by from individual patches: It will automatically be re-added when the series gets applied. I have only tested the collection of *all* patches in this series and can thus only vouch for correct functioning of the *entire* series, hence providing the Tested-by in-reply-to the cover letter is the only thing that makes sense to me. Either way, I don't think arguing over which patch to apply a Tested-by to is a productive use of everyone's time. Thanks, Lukas
