On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 8:07 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 11:59 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Nikolai Kondrashov <Nikolai.Kondrashov@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
> > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file.
> []
> > I have to ask whether we *really* need to introduce yet another tag for
> > this. How are we going to use this information? Are we going to try to
> > make a tag for every way in which somebody might test a patch?
>
> In general, I think
> Link: <to some url test result>
> would be good enough.
Exactly. And if you put the test results (or a link) in your patch
below the "---", or in your cover letter, the "Link:" tag pointing to
lore (or something else, unfortunately) that most (but unfortunately
not all) maintainers already add when committing patches allows
anyone to find it.
> And remember that all this goes stale after awhile
> and that includes old test suites.
Yeah...
Isn't the purpose of a "Tested-with:" tag just for the maintainer to
know which patches have been tested with the test suite already, and
which haven't? I expect reviewers/maintainers to scrutinize (extra)
patches that lack such a tag (or lack the same under the "---"),
and/or run the test suite theirselves.
I.e. does this serve any purpose _after_ the patch has been applied?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
