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
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
