On 6/4/2014 9:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000 >> Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote: >> >> >>> If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15 >>> minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it takes you to read the >>> patchset? >> >> Yeah, what about that? > > That testing a patch for obvious, common regressions takes no longer > than it does to read and review the logic. > >>> IMO, every reviewer has their own developement environment and they >>> should be at least testing that the change they are reviewing >>> doesn't cause problems in that environment, just like they do for >>> their own code before they post it for review. >> >> Let me ask you this. In the scientific community, when someone posts a >> research project and asks their peers to review their work. Are all >> those reviewers required to test out that paper? >> Or are they to review it, check the math, look for cases that are >> missed, see common errors, and other checks? I'm sure some >> reviewers may do various tests, but others will just check the >> logic. I'm having a very hard time seeing where Reviewed-by means >> tested-by. I see those as two completely different tags. > > We are not conducting a scientific research experiment here. We are > conduting a very large software *engineering* project here.
Yes, software engineering. Where software review is a manual process of *reading* and understanding code, in all of the processes I have been involved in at big corporations that love big process. (Not to claim I know of all the processes everyone else uses...) Why can't you just let reviewed-by and tested-by mean different things instead of one being a super-set of the other? If you force reviewed-by to also mean tested-by then you just shrank your available pool of reviewers. </dead-horse beating> > > So perhaps we should be using robust software engineering processes > rather than academic peer review as the model for our code review > process? < snip > Cheers, Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/