On 10/8/07, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
