Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

Stefan Richter
2007-10-08T18:36:47Z

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.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =-=- -=---