On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 03:21:58PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > It's also probably going to be necessary to have separate sets of > tests for different use-cases. For example, there might be a smaller, > quicker set of tests to run on every patch, and a much longer, more > expensive set which only runs every other day. So I don't think > there'll even be a 1:1 mapping between 'test collections' (files) and > subsystems. But an automated way of running "this collection of tests" > would be very useful, particularly if it's more user-friendly than > just writing a shell script (e.g., having nicely formatted output, > being able to run things in parallel or remotely, etc). This is definitely the case for me, I have an escallating set of tests that I run per patch, per branch and for things like sending pull requests. > > maintainer: > > - name: name1 > > email: email1 > > - name: name2 > > email: email2 > > list: > How important is it to have these in the case where they're already in > the MAINTAINERS file? I can see it being important for tests which > live elsewhere, though eventually, I'd still prefer the subsystem > maintainer to take some responsibility for the tests run for their > subsystems. It does seem useful to list the maintainers for tests in addition to the maintaienrs for the code, and like you say some of the tests are out of tree.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
