On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > 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.
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. --b. - 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/