Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231007-topic-test_tag-v1-1-513cd9e577ed@linaro.org> <8734ymvbds.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <8734ymvbds.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Sun, 8 Oct 2023 19:18:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVf+bVj8at_GsHhRzHuDFbYGMmutOofMz1Ekv3TTxP4Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>,
        Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 2:57 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> 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@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  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@linux-m68k.org

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