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

[Petr Vorel]

> 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 status their patches would help (set "Superseded" if they sent new patch version,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.

This is slightly different topic (I wrote about forgetting to update status),
but it's even more important.

> 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.

If it's obvious, that patch needs serious change I'm ok to set the status.
But because I mainly watch patchses in patchwork (and I'm not sure if I'm alone),
if the patch was posted recently, I wait few hours / one day to update the status
of the patch so that others can see it. But sure I'll stop doing it, if we all are
ok. (I should force to look into ML queue more often, there are also bug reports
and other discussions which aren't in patchwork.)

Kind regards,
Petr

> > 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