Hi Russell, On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:46:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:08:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:19:11PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > This does need a fair amount of testing before it can be merged, so I'd > > > like to see a number of Tested-by's against this patch. Please also > > > indicate whether you tested on LE or BE or both, which filesystems, and > > > whether they were read-only mounted or read-write mounted. > > You could make life a bit easier (at least for us at Pengutronix, > > probably more) if you had a branch with a defined name for patches like > > these. We could add that to our daily test then. > > No, because then it's not possible to properly tie down what has been > tested and what hasn't. > > The advantage of emailed patches is that when people reply to them, you > have a better idea that the patch to which they're replying to is the > one they tested. > > Such as in this case where the follow-up patch hasn't received any > replies, and so I can't add the one received tested-by to the follow-up > patch. With the git approach, I wouldn't know what was tested unless > you included the commit IDs each time. > > And let's face it - if it was tested daily, are you going to go through > the hastle of digging out the commit IDs and emailing each day to say > what was tested? That sounds to me like a _lot_ more work than testing > the occasional emailed patch. I maybe wouldn't report each success, I would report if my test fails. You can consider this more or less valuable. Still I think given the ease this could be done it's worth it. That's how linux-next works, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
