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 -=====-=-=== =-=- -=--- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
