Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

Scott Preece
2007-10-08T19:26:46Z

On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
> > 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.
---

Tested-by should, at the very least, have a description of the test
environment in the body (suggesting that the change compiled and ran
in that environment). Preferably it should also have a description of
the test or test suite run and whether that test failed on an
unpatched system.

scott
--
scott preece