Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical. 
>> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
>> patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog".  Tested-by implies
>> "I did something that exercised the patch, and it didn't explode" -
>> that's on par with an actual review (ideally all patches would be both
>> tested and reviewed).
> 
> but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading
> the patch."  Right?
> 
> IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works...

Tested-by translated into German and back into English:  "Works for me,
test methods not specified."

So, putting a Tested-by into the changelog is only useful if the
necessary testing is rather simple (i.e. "fixed the bug which I was
always able to reproduce before") or if the tester is known to have
performed rigorous and sufficiently broad tests.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =-=- -=---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/