On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 03:00:57PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > In so far as making it possible to get b) to help, my current excitement > > surrounds around what Song Liu mentioned to me at LSFMM and then > > quickly demonstrated that the eBPF folks are doing with patchwork. > > Get the patches to be tested automatically, and *immediately* > > patch reviewers and maintainers can get feedback if something is not even > > worth reviewing. > I'm all for automated testing and CI, and all i915 patches get tested > before merging. But requiring everything to pass before a human so much > as looks at it can be incredibly demotivating for contributors. For > example, if they polish the contribution, and take all corner cases into > consideration to pass the tests... and then get told their design is all > wrong and needs to be redone from scratch. It's a balance. Indeed, and you're relying on your test automation being robust, the results being available promptly and the results being comprehensible if people can't readily run the tests themselves. That said I read the above as more providing results so people can look at them rather than gating looking at things (eg, if everything is failing it's probably fine to not bother) - that seems a lot more reasonable.