On 1/10/19 3:50 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 01/10/2019 01:40, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 30/9/19 10:45 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> --- >>> images/user/patch-review.png | Bin 0 -> 57130 bytes >>> images/user/patch-review.puml | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> user/support/contrib.rst | 67 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>> 3 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 images/user/patch-review.png >>> create mode 100644 images/user/patch-review.puml >>> >> >> If you want to review the figure it is ... >> >> http://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/png/dP0_ZzDC4CRx_HGZwoqIlSf9K8Q28451ST7f3WgaD7lsutZ1EsjcnuxoxLcFWt9790gAbNR-_6QUUNPPlUWOU-VivzpsWuZd8-YSHg6wc_-P0X_OCy7dCsaYmHHm8i_DWUlKGS1AWzUwemm9oE_AeCyyfH_OKbKTWrAR97hTM5DLpVKdS4FQuHKuJsymeT-98kQx9CSPlMnSCANztFQsHASkzA3LerKXkR2ng7gX-sR3-pM5JAjlo6j7jFsOh4FmSmo2AsbJ15v1dXYdFyyhwDUXcSjrYZ4eHUJiZQph94tWOt-slhyOGPk9_jkR7IQb7YDOJT1l7QsaI1CaXyJBtNlwdzuS-DLfxMo3RnLYoMgpsLJK1uPDDi-khEN-pVx2N2pVfxLpeQNLmqlyvEr-38g6diyN3b9SdtVnrVU7CNStwm-iQKbA-evQIJ2a73J9OYKd1KauTbe2elinAps3ciIOjtcszEENJ_TF57rWBGzoLxBWncY7FY_gpV6GQo-tDjYXeNKkQngSsvLeZFql >> > > Nice, you can use it for new images here: > > http://www.plantuml.com/plantuml/uml/SyfFKj2rKt3CoKnELR1Io4ZDoSa70000 >
:) > [...] >>> +* The patch builds. All RTEMS tests link with this patch. >>> + >>> +* The patch does not introduce new compiler warnings. >> >> This step is not in the figure. > > You mean there should be a step mentioning this checklist? Sorry, I missed by a line, I meant the patch builds. I am wondering if building should be in the figure, that is the figure and this text match. I think it is important to point out in a bold manner patches need to build and need to work. I know this is common sense but .... >> >> Built against which BSPs? > > This is for the user manual. I think at least one arbitrary BSP which is > affected by the patch should be sufficient. > Joel and I now have the BSP builder building on a regular basis because we found things broke in weird ways across archs and bsps. If we had a patch smoke test tool available it would help but we do not. >> >>> +* The patch does not introduce new test failures in existing tests. >> >> This step is not in the figure. >> >> Again which BSPs? This assumes expected fails are valid for the bsps being >> tested. > > I think we should not add to many details to the figure. The list of steps here does not matching the figure is a potential source of user problems if the user inspects the figure and skims the written text. >> >> What about tickets and the "Closes ...", "Updates ..." etc tags? > > Yes, this is missing. What should be checked as well? What does "checked" mean? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
