On 3/17/22 03:42, David Gow wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> >> >> An August 2021 RFC patch [1] to create the KTAP Specification resulted in >> some discussion of possible items to add to the specification. >> The conversation ended without completing the document. >> >> Progress resumed with a December 2021 RFC patch [2] to add a KTAP >> Specification file (Version 1) to the Linux kernel. Many of the >> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion were not included in >> Version 1. This patch series is intended to revisit some of the >> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion. > > Thanks for kicking this off again. There were definitely a lot of good > ideas in those threads which we haven't got to yet. > > I think there is an interesting line to walk between keeping KTAP > sufficiently "TAP-like" (particularly w/r/t being able to reuse > existing TAP parsers), and actually adding features, but I don't > recall seeing many such issues in the previous threads. > >> >> Patch 1 changes the Specification version to "2-rc" to indicate >> that following patches are not yet accepted into a final version 2. > > I'm okay with this, though I'd want us to be a little careful with the > timing so we don't end up with, for example, 5.18 having a KTAP spec > called 2-rc which is functionally indistinguishable from v1. I finally have some time to return to this. I could host a branch on my kernel.org "frowand" linux kernel. When agreement is reached on a patch on this mail list, I would add it to the branch. When the discussion determines that it is time to release a version 2 of the specification I would add one more commit that only updates the version. Does that sound like a good way to proceed? > >> >> Patch 2 is an example of a simple change to the Specification. The >> change does not change the content of the Specification, but updates >> a formatting directive as suggested by the Documentation maintainer. > > Thanks -- personally, I'd rather this change _does_ go in straight > away, even before the 2-rc renaming. > >> I intend to take some specific suggestions from the August 2021 >> discussion to create stand-alone RFC patches to the Specification >> instead of adding them as additional patches in this series. The >> intent is to focus discussion on a single area of the Specification >> in each patch email thread. > > Seems like a sensible way to structure the discussion. It could get a > little bit messy if there end up being merge conflicts, but the whole > thing could be collapsed into a single patchset later if that ended up > making more sense. (Though that might remove the need for the "rc" > version, depending on exactly when and how it happened.) Yes, if I host a branch then no need for the preliminary rc version. > > I'd also be curious to see patches to tests and/or test parsers to > show off any particularly compatibility-breaking and/or interesting > changes, though I don't think that _has_ to be a prerequisite for > discussion or the spec. That is a good suggestion. -Frank > >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207190251.18426-1-davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx >> >> Frank Rowand (2): >> Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc >> Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block >> >> Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 20 +++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> >> > > Cheers, > -- David
