On 8.10.2023 19:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 2:57 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> 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
