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. 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 notes about testing are needed, they can go in or below the changelog, as appropriate. Thanks, jon
