linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:14:39 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag

On 8.10.2023 19:18, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 2:57 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
>> Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.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@...aro.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
> 
Okay, I see your points, let's forget about this..

Konrad