On Monday, 8 October 2007 21:26, Scott Preece wrote: > 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.
Tested-by: is sort of trivial for a fix patch, for example, if a bug reporter confirms that the proposed patch actually fixes the issue. IMHO it wouldn't be practical to complicate that. Greetings, Rafael - 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/
