Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:26:34 -0500 | From | "Scott Preece" <> | Subject | Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight |
| |
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |