On 8/10/2017 1:32 AM, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:00:16AM -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
On 8/9/2017 7:32 AM, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
This is an RFC for adding documentation to IGT subtests. Each
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:00:16AM -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/2017 7:32 AM, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> > > This is an RFC for adding documentation to IGT subtests. Each subtest can
> > > have
> > > something
On 8/9/2017 7:32 AM, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
This is an RFC for adding documentation to IGT subtests. Each subtest can have
something similar to a WHAT - explaining what the subtest actually does,
and a WHY - which explains a
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> This is an RFC for adding documentation to IGT subtests. Each subtest can have
> something similar to a WHAT - explaining what the subtest actually does,
> and a WHY - which explains a use case, if applicable. Additionally,
>
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 15:09 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> This is an RFC for adding documentation to IGT subtests. Each subtest can have
> something similar to a WHAT - explaining what the subtest actually does,
> and a WHY - which explains a use case, if applicable. Additionally,
> include
Hi, I'm a bit confused by this patch. How is this idea different from
what previous patch from Petri offered? I mean what additional value
does this solution brings? Is this something we want on top of previous
solution or instead of previous solution?
This doesn't take in to account auto
This is an RFC for adding documentation to IGT subtests. Each subtest can have
something similar to a WHAT - explaining what the subtest actually does,
and a WHY - which explains a use case, if applicable. Additionally,
include comments for anything in the subtest code which can help
explain HOW
