[LTP] [PATCH] Add goals of patch review and tips

[Richard Palethorpe]

Hello,

Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi all,
>
>> + also add Tested: link-to-github-actions-run below --- in patch would help
>> (it's than obvious that maintainer does not have to bother with doing it or
>> not hope that it fails on CentOS 7 old compiler or very new Fedora compiler).
>
>> Maybe also encourage people to create account in the patchwork and maintain
>> status their patches would help (set "Superseded" if they sent new patch version,
>> other statuses like "Accepted" or "Changes requested" are also sometimes
>> forgotten by the maintainer who post comments or merge the patch).
> Example why helping to maintain the patches by submitter would help:
> mknod01: Rewrite the test using new LTP API [1] followed by [v2,1/1] mknod01:
> Rewrite the test using new LTP API [2].
>
> Li reviewed v2, but later Cyril pushed v1 (manually updating patch) without
> update patchwork. (Li review was ignored, I tried to apply v2 to merge it
> because status was not updated.)

Yes, I think patchwork is important.

Probably where we disagree is how agressive to be when removing stuff
from the default view. IMO a shared list can not be allowed to grow; you
can't leave TODO items on there unless they are next on your priority
list.

So I would say remove items (so they don't show up with the default
filter) aggressively and put them on a private list if you intend to do
them ever.

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20230222034501.11800-1-akumar@suse.de/
> [2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20230228154203.2783-1-akumar@suse.de/
>
>> Both of these are small helps, but they still help LTP maintainers to have more
>> time for the review or for writing own patches.
>
>> But I can post a follow-up patch with these after your patch is merged if you
>> don't want to formulate them.
>
>> Kind regards,
>> Petr


-- 
Thank you,
Richard.