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 59096C76196 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A113CD2AD for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:47:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.3]) (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 8236C3C5624 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:47:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (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-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF11F1A007AB for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:47:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A8833D20; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:47:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1679503627; h=from:from: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=CZ2H7zOrMwIgqlgK8TRkpAQgt5IgFEXBMUF0RU6KiXk=; b=2mk3IhVOK/950ICZ7KaNkmMa53eSw04kkhL4Rz9nIlCtOm2yQHAvq9nEhWPkOoUwoV4ddD 30pyWYi6Y5f+VzVW6xEvU2hVzOxHTajElSBWmH6MCscF1dpBfCzRL+xMl0hSKndAyTvPtl iFDiji5BWJQgzenN9aPyrQ10jwMKUE0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1679503627; h=from:from: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=CZ2H7zOrMwIgqlgK8TRkpAQgt5IgFEXBMUF0RU6KiXk=; b=pnWiHK9+A385csz1NWM8JcoJyVX8zbQPDUPLF6/k9w8Yhqpflio3bcZYL1gglRYh8jhyV8 7YQw/OEavSXnQ4Dg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D873413416; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id wpGPMwoxG2SfegAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:47:06 +0000 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:48:18 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Richard Palethorpe Message-ID: References: <20230314114037.25581-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <87sfe52cms.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sfe52cms.fsf@suse.de> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-3.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: , 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" Hi! > >> +1. Prevent false positive test results > >> +2. Prevent false negative test results > >> +3. Make future changes as easy as possible > > > > I would say that number 3 maybe be a bit controversial, I've seen cases > > where attempts to futureproof the code caused steep increase in the > > test > > complexity. So maybe: > > > > 3. Keep the code as simple as possible as well as futureproof > > Perhaps just > > 3. Keep the code as simple as possibe, but no simpler > > This is possibly paraphrasing Einstein: > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ > > > NOTE: I think future proofing is actually very dangerous. What I > probably meant was > > 3. Keep the code as simple as possible, while maintaining optionality, > but if there appears to be a disproportionate increase in complexity > for an increase in optionality then simplicity takes priority because > identifying relevant optionality is hard. > > but "optionality" does not have a nice dictionary definition. I guess > you could substitute it with "freedom". In any case it's not something I > would want to write in documentation. There is no easy way to > express it. That sounds way to complicated, unfortunately reality is often complicated and cannot be overly simplified. So I would go with the simple paraphrase to Einstein, that is short and to the point. > >> +## How to get patches merged > >> + > >> +Once you think a patch is good enough you should add your Reviewed-by > >> +tags. This means you will get some credit for getting the patch > >> +merged. Also some blame if there are problems. > > > > Maybe we should mention the Tested-by: tag explicitly here as well. > > I'm not sure how we interpret Tested-by when deciding to merge; does it > mean someone is happy for the test to be merged or not? > > Should someone add both tags if they have reviewed and tested it? Tested-by: means that someone actually tried the test and that it did what it was supposed to do. This has obvious meaning for reproducers, and yes for a reproducer you can add both tags and both are meaningful. For regular tests Tested-by does not have that much value I guess. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp