[libvirt] [RFC] Adopting 'Tested-by' tag (and probably other tags)?

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:55:50AM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I was wondering if the upstream would be receptive to adding a
> 'Tested-by' tag for patches that had someone give tested feedback on the
> list.
> 
> Personally, what I consider a bar for giving a 'Tested-by' is, when
> someone:
> 
>   - Applies a patch or a series (following the iterations as needed,
>     over time) locally, compile them, spend time understanding the
>     functional change in question, and its implications.)
>     
>   - Do a concrete test (w/ either a Python API or a `virsh`-based
>     command-line) that exercises the said code path.
>     
>   - *Post* the above test procedure / and necessary outputs as evidence
>     to the list, in reasonable detail.  (Not a: "yeah, I tested and it
>     works" -- this isn't a 'rule'; it can have exceptions)
> 
> >From a quick glance, in its 10-year history, libvirt upstream had about
> a mere 21 entries of 'Tested-by' tags:
> 
>     $ git log | grep Tested-by | wc -l
>     21
> 
> I bring this up because, when someone spends effort following (sometimes
> over weeks / months) a patch (or a series) from the list, gives
> reasonably detailed test feedback, in my books, it would be fair to
> acknowledge it in the Git.  And it will encourage them to spend time in
> future.
> 
> ---
> 
> I realize that if it's not automated (via Git hooks or similar), it can
> become "lossy", i.e. if Joe posts v1 of a patch, you give a 'Tested-by',
> then there are two scenarios that immediately spring to mind:
> 
>   (1) Joe respins a v2 to make some corrections, adds your 'Tested-by'
>       tag, and whoever applies the patch picks it up -- all good.
> 
>   (b) However, if a v2 was _not_ necessary, then whoever is applying the
>       patch / series must remember to add the tag -- "lossy".

I don't think that's a big deal really, QEMU has been doing this for years.
If you post a vNNN of your patch, you are responsible for adding the tags.
When the sub-tree maintainer accepts your patch they add any outstanding
tags, as well as their own S-o-B. This is little work compard to actually
applying & testing the patch before pushing it

> Thoughts / remarks / rotten tomatoes welcome.

I'd like to see us formally adopt the signed-off-by approach for all
patches as a mandatory thing, along with the associated contributor
convenant.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|