From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757588AbXJHSxu (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:53:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755925AbXJHSxm (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:53:42 -0400 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:54615 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757424AbXJHSxl (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:53:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:52:25 -0400 To: Stefan Richter Cc: Randy Dunlap , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Jan Engelhardt , Sam Ravnborg , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight Message-ID: <20071008185225.GK2902@fieldses.org> References: <25555.1191864285@lwn.net> <20071008173706.GA12026@uranus.ravnborg.org> <470A708D.4080905@goop.org> <20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <470A7847.8070502@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <470A7847.8070502@s5r6.in-berlin.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical. > >> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the > >> patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog". Tested-by implies > >> "I did something that exercised the patch, and it didn't explode" - > >> that's on par with an actual review (ideally all patches would be both > >> tested and reviewed). > > > > but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading > > the patch." Right? > > > > IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works... > > Tested-by translated into German and back into English: "Works for me, > test methods not specified." > > So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the > necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. "fixed the bug which I was > always able to reproduce before") or if the tester is known to have > performed rigorous and sufficiently broad tests. Well, you can still include those test-method details in the body of the message in addition to adding the "Tested-by:". Does "Tested-by" just mean they ran some relevant test on the final version of the patch? The really hard part is often the initial work required to find a good reproduceable test case, capture the right error report, or bisect to the right commit. I think that also counts as "testing". And it'd be nice to have a tag for those sorts of contributions, partly just as another way to ackowledge them. --b.