From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04752C6FD1D for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:34:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416D93CD354 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:34:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D35843C1D84 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:34:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68E2B6001E0 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:34:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7781F45F for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:34:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1679304859; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5kp0ydPUPK8o58td86UirzHyIKHM4Qx9GQh1dWy5f/k=; b=hHv+CQJw3fZC9d8RYF7WWKH9XFPWkApkKzTRGlPdP5Unp4OC//9qPx1fM9avPRrbULLTlh e7jGiXRkUAdwqnoyS0lfRSKj3uhGLPXLAQrMTxcKmseHUgOY5x//XtvKxb6U8KoTxhTbjw 1Ht6TEkLQyhf4V4cJHTadSUwb1lqGiA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1679304859; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5kp0ydPUPK8o58td86UirzHyIKHM4Qx9GQh1dWy5f/k=; b=zkoEw6Dr0NSI5VfJ24WfXIhqzbvCb9PEiUDWNonPGRXEWjkP+9FMYWoH2IglY7d54tsld3 UKY9NlpjF0ZjfgDg== Received: from g78 (unknown [10.163.28.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4B162C141; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:34:19 +0000 (UTC) References: <20230314114037.25581-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <20230314175438.GB79562@pevik> <20230320080415.GA179863@pevik> <20230320082336.GA182681@pevik> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Petr Vorel Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:25:50 +0000 Organization: Linux Private Site In-reply-to: <20230320082336.GA182681@pevik> Message-ID: <871qlj4vhj.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Add goals of patch review and tips X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello, Petr Vorel writes: > Hi all, > >> + also add Tested: link-to-github-actions-run below --- in patch would help >> (it's than obvious that maintainer does not have to bother with doing it or >> not hope that it fails on CentOS 7 old compiler or very new Fedora compiler). > >> Maybe also encourage people to create account in the patchwork and maintain >> status their patches would help (set "Superseded" if they sent new patch version, >> other statuses like "Accepted" or "Changes requested" are also sometimes >> forgotten by the maintainer who post comments or merge the patch). > Example why helping to maintain the patches by submitter would help: > mknod01: Rewrite the test using new LTP API [1] followed by [v2,1/1] mknod01: > Rewrite the test using new LTP API [2]. > > Li reviewed v2, but later Cyril pushed v1 (manually updating patch) without > update patchwork. (Li review was ignored, I tried to apply v2 to merge it > because status was not updated.) Yes, I think patchwork is important. Probably where we disagree is how agressive to be when removing stuff from the default view. IMO a shared list can not be allowed to grow; you can't leave TODO items on there unless they are next on your priority list. So I would say remove items (so they don't show up with the default filter) aggressively and put them on a private list if you intend to do them ever. > > Kind regards, > Petr > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20230222034501.11800-1-akumar@suse.de/ > [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20230228154203.2783-1-akumar@suse.de/ > >> Both of these are small helps, but they still help LTP maintainers to have more >> time for the review or for writing own patches. > >> But I can post a follow-up patch with these after your patch is merged if you >> don't want to formulate them. > >> Kind regards, >> Petr -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp