[RFC PATCH 0/2] Documentation: dev-tools: begin KTAP spec v2 process

[RFC PATCH 0/2] Documentation: dev-tools: begin KTAP spec v2 process

[frowand.list]

From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

An August 2021 RFC patch [1] to create the KTAP Specification resulted in
some discussion of possible items to add to the specification.
The conversation ended without completing the document.

Progress resumed with a December 2021 RFC patch [2] to add a KTAP
Specification file (Version 1) to the Linux kernel.  Many of the
suggestions from the August 2021 discussion were not included in
Version 1.  This patch series is intended to revisit some of the
suggestions from the August 2021 discussion.

Patch 1 changes the Specification version to "2-rc" to indicate
that following patches are not yet accepted into a final version 2.

Patch 2 is an example of a simple change to the Specification.  The
change does not change the content of the Specification, but updates
a formatting directive as suggested by the Documentation maintainer.

I intend to take some specific suggestions from the August 2021
discussion to create stand-alone RFC patches to the Specification
instead of adding them as additional patches in this series.  The
intent is to focus discussion on a single area of the Specification
in each patch email thread.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@mail.gmail.com
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207190251.18426-1-davidgow@google.com

Frank Rowand (2):
  Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc
  Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

 Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 20 +++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

-- 
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

[RFC PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc

[frowand.list]

From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

Prepare KTAP Specification for the process of creating Version 2.
The version will remain 2-rc until the final commit to complete
Version 2.

Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
index 5ee735c6687f..37b5dc61bfb8 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
 
 ===================================================
-The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 1
+The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 2-rc
 ===================================================
 
 TAP, or the Test Anything Protocol is a format for specifying test results used
-- 
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc

[David Gow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1965 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>
> Prepare KTAP Specification for the process of creating Version 2.
> The version will remain 2-rc until the final commit to complete
> Version 2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> ---

This seems okay to me, though I'd generally rather this stay in a
branch rather than hitting torvalds/master while there aren't any
substantive changes to the actual spec. (Basically, let's not rush
naming this "2-rc" for 5.18 if there aren't any other changes: a 2-rc
which is practically the same as 1 is probably going to be more
confusing than helpful if it sticks around for a whole kernel release.

(Also, when would we want to update the various mentions of "KTAP
version 1" in the document to "KTAP version 2" or "KTAP version 2-rc"?
Now, when 2 is released, at the first breaking change to that example,
etc?)

Cheers,
-- David

>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> index 5ee735c6687f..37b5dc61bfb8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
>  ===================================================
> -The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 1
> +The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 2-rc
>  ===================================================

Nit: Sphinx complains that we now need more '=' signs:

Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst:3: WARNING: Title overline too short.
===================================================


The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 2-rc
===================================================

>
>  TAP, or the Test Anything Protocol is a format for specifying test results used
> --
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc

[Frank Rowand]

On 3/17/22 03:43, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> Prepare KTAP Specification for the process of creating Version 2.
>> The version will remain 2-rc until the final commit to complete
>> Version 2.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
> 
> This seems okay to me, though I'd generally rather this stay in a
> branch rather than hitting torvalds/master while there aren't any
> substantive changes to the actual spec. (Basically, let's not rush
> naming this "2-rc" for 5.18 if there aren't any other changes: a 2-rc
> which is practically the same as 1 is probably going to be more
> confusing than helpful if it sticks around for a whole kernel release.

Sounds good.  In my reply (a few minutes ago) to your other email, I offer
to host a branch.  The branch approach sounds good to me.

> 
> (Also, when would we want to update the various mentions of "KTAP
> version 1" in the document to "KTAP version 2" or "KTAP version 2-rc"?
> Now, when 2 is released, at the first breaking change to that example,
> etc?)

There are only a few references to version 1.  I can create a patch to change
them to version 2 (other than the version of the document itself).

If we are working on a branch, it should not make a big difference when the
internal uses of "version 1" are changed to "version 2".  If I do it right
away then it won't get overlooked.

-Frank

> 
> Cheers,
> -- David
> 
>>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> index 5ee735c6687f..37b5dc61bfb8 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>>  .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>
>>  ===================================================
>> -The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 1
>> +The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 2-rc
>>  ===================================================
> 
> Nit: Sphinx complains that we now need more '=' signs:
> 
> Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst:3: WARNING: Title overline too short.
> ===================================================
> 
> 
> The Kernel Test Anything Protocol (KTAP), version 2-rc
> ===================================================
> 
>>
>>  TAP, or the Test Anything Protocol is a format for specifying test results used
>> --
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>

[RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

[frowand.list]

From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.

Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
---
 Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
@@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
 directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
 separator.
 
-Example result lines include:
-
-.. code-block:: none
+Example result lines include::
 
 	ok 1 test_case_name
 
 The test "test_case_name" passed.
 
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	not ok 1 test_case_name
 
 The test "test_case_name" failed.
 
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
 
 The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
 unavailable".
 
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
 
 The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".
 
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	ok 5 check return code # rcode=0
 
@@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.
 
 An example of a test with two nested subtests:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	KTAP version 1
 	1..1
@@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:
 
 An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
 
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	KTAP version 1
 	1..2
@@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form
 
 Example KTAP output
 --------------------
-.. code-block:: none
+::
 
 	KTAP version 1
 	1..1
-- 
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

[David Gow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2524 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>
> KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
> literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.
>
> Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> ---

This looks good to me.

I'd personally rather push this through independently of the KTAP 2.0
spec updates, as it's really just a minor formatting change to the
spec, and it has no impact on the actual KTAP format.

So, if we can accept this independently, that'd be swell.

Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Cheers,
-- David


>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
> @@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
>  directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
>  separator.
>
> -Example result lines include:
> -
> -.. code-block:: none
> +Example result lines include::
>
>         ok 1 test_case_name
>
>  The test "test_case_name" passed.
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         not ok 1 test_case_name
>
>  The test "test_case_name" failed.
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
>
>  The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
>  unavailable".
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
>
>  The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         ok 5 check return code # rcode=0
>
> @@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.
>
>  An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         KTAP version 1
>         1..1
> @@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>
>  An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         KTAP version 1
>         1..2
> @@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form
>
>  Example KTAP output
>  --------------------
> -.. code-block:: none
> +::
>
>         KTAP version 1
>         1..1
> --
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

[Frank Rowand]

Hi Jon,

On 3/17/22 03:43, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> KTAP Specification: Change code-block directives to straightforward
>> literal blocks since the blocks do not contain code.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
> 
> This looks good to me.
> 
> I'd personally rather push this through independently of the KTAP 2.0
> spec updates, as it's really just a minor formatting change to the
> spec, and it has no impact on the actual KTAP format.
> 
> So, if we can accept this independently, that'd be swell.
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

I got distracted with other tasks, just now returning to this.

There has been no other comment in the last month, so I think it
is fair to go ahead and ask you to pull this patch.

Can you pull just this patch (patch 2/2) or would you prefer that
I do a version 2 which does not contain patch 1/2?

-Frank

> 
> Cheers,
> -- David
> 
> 
>>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 18 ++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> index 37b5dc61bfb8..b9a57ceddd4f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst
>> @@ -115,34 +115,32 @@ The diagnostic data field is optional, and results which have neither a
>>  directive nor any diagnostic data do not need to include the "#" field
>>  separator.
>>
>> -Example result lines include:
>> -
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +Example result lines include::
>>
>>         ok 1 test_case_name
>>
>>  The test "test_case_name" passed.
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         not ok 1 test_case_name
>>
>>  The test "test_case_name" failed.
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         ok 1 test # SKIP necessary dependency unavailable
>>
>>  The test "test" was SKIPPED with the diagnostic message "necessary dependency
>>  unavailable".
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         not ok 1 test # TIMEOUT 30 seconds
>>
>>  The test "test" timed out, with diagnostic data "30 seconds".
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         ok 5 check return code # rcode=0
>>
>> @@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ allowed to be either indented or not indented.
>>
>>  An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         KTAP version 1
>>         1..1
>> @@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ An example of a test with two nested subtests:
>>
>>  An example format with multiple levels of nested testing:
>>
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         KTAP version 1
>>         1..2
>> @@ -250,7 +248,7 @@ nested version line, uses a line of the form
>>
>>  Example KTAP output
>>  --------------------
>> -.. code-block:: none
>> +::
>>
>>         KTAP version 1
>>         1..1
>> --
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block

[Jonathan Corbet]

Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Jon,

> I got distracted with other tasks, just now returning to this.
>
> There has been no other comment in the last month, so I think it
> is fair to go ahead and ask you to pull this patch.
>
> Can you pull just this patch (patch 2/2) or would you prefer that
> I do a version 2 which does not contain patch 1/2?

I've applied it, thanks.

jon

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Documentation: dev-tools: begin KTAP spec v2 process

[David Gow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3046 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>
> An August 2021 RFC patch [1] to create the KTAP Specification resulted in
> some discussion of possible items to add to the specification.
> The conversation ended without completing the document.
>
> Progress resumed with a December 2021 RFC patch [2] to add a KTAP
> Specification file (Version 1) to the Linux kernel.  Many of the
> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion were not included in
> Version 1.  This patch series is intended to revisit some of the
> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion.

Thanks for kicking this off again. There were definitely a lot of good
ideas in those threads which we haven't got to yet.

I think there is an interesting line to walk between keeping KTAP
sufficiently "TAP-like" (particularly w/r/t being able to reuse
existing TAP parsers), and actually adding features, but I don't
recall seeing many such issues in the previous threads.

>
> Patch 1 changes the Specification version to "2-rc" to indicate
> that following patches are not yet accepted into a final version 2.

I'm okay with this, though I'd want us to be a little careful with the
timing so we don't end up with, for example, 5.18 having a KTAP spec
called 2-rc which is functionally indistinguishable from v1.

>
> Patch 2 is an example of a simple change to the Specification.  The
> change does not change the content of the Specification, but updates
> a formatting directive as suggested by the Documentation maintainer.

Thanks -- personally, I'd rather this change _does_ go in straight
away, even before the 2-rc renaming.

> I intend to take some specific suggestions from the August 2021
> discussion to create stand-alone RFC patches to the Specification
> instead of adding them as additional patches in this series.  The
> intent is to focus discussion on a single area of the Specification
> in each patch email thread.

Seems like a sensible way to structure the discussion. It could get a
little bit messy if there end up being merge conflicts, but the whole
thing could be collapsed into a single patchset later if that ended up
making more sense. (Though that might remove the need for the "rc"
version, depending on exactly when and how it happened.)

I'd also be curious to see patches to tests and/or test parsers to
show off any particularly compatibility-breaking and/or interesting
changes, though I don't think that _has_ to be a prerequisite for
discussion or the spec.

>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207190251.18426-1-davidgow@google.com
>
> Frank Rowand (2):
>   Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc
>   Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block
>
>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 20 +++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> --
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>

Cheers,
-- David

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Documentation: dev-tools: begin KTAP spec v2 process

[Frank Rowand]

On 3/17/22 03:42, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> An August 2021 RFC patch [1] to create the KTAP Specification resulted in
>> some discussion of possible items to add to the specification.
>> The conversation ended without completing the document.
>>
>> Progress resumed with a December 2021 RFC patch [2] to add a KTAP
>> Specification file (Version 1) to the Linux kernel.  Many of the
>> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion were not included in
>> Version 1.  This patch series is intended to revisit some of the
>> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion.
> 
> Thanks for kicking this off again. There were definitely a lot of good
> ideas in those threads which we haven't got to yet.
> 
> I think there is an interesting line to walk between keeping KTAP
> sufficiently "TAP-like" (particularly w/r/t being able to reuse
> existing TAP parsers), and actually adding features, but I don't
> recall seeing many such issues in the previous threads.
> 
>>
>> Patch 1 changes the Specification version to "2-rc" to indicate
>> that following patches are not yet accepted into a final version 2.
> 
> I'm okay with this, though I'd want us to be a little careful with the
> timing so we don't end up with, for example, 5.18 having a KTAP spec
> called 2-rc which is functionally indistinguishable from v1.

I finally have some time to return to this.

I could host a branch on my kernel.org "frowand" linux kernel.  When
agreement is reached on a patch on this mail list, I would add it
to the branch.  When the discussion determines that it is time to
release a version 2 of the specification I would add one more commit
that only updates the version.

Does that sound like a good way to proceed?

> 
>>
>> Patch 2 is an example of a simple change to the Specification.  The
>> change does not change the content of the Specification, but updates
>> a formatting directive as suggested by the Documentation maintainer.
> 
> Thanks -- personally, I'd rather this change _does_ go in straight
> away, even before the 2-rc renaming.
> 
>> I intend to take some specific suggestions from the August 2021
>> discussion to create stand-alone RFC patches to the Specification
>> instead of adding them as additional patches in this series.  The
>> intent is to focus discussion on a single area of the Specification
>> in each patch email thread.
> 
> Seems like a sensible way to structure the discussion. It could get a
> little bit messy if there end up being merge conflicts, but the whole
> thing could be collapsed into a single patchset later if that ended up
> making more sense. (Though that might remove the need for the "rc"
> version, depending on exactly when and how it happened.)

Yes, if I host a branch then no need for the preliminary rc version.

> 
> I'd also be curious to see patches to tests and/or test parsers to
> show off any particularly compatibility-breaking and/or interesting
> changes, though I don't think that _has_ to be a prerequisite for
> discussion or the spec.

That is a good suggestion.

-Frank

> 
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CA+GJov6tdjvY9x12JsJT14qn6c7NViJxqaJk+r-K1YJzPggFDQ@mail.gmail.com
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207190251.18426-1-davidgow@google.com
>>
>> Frank Rowand (2):
>>   Documentation: dev-tools: KTAP spec change version to 2-rc
>>   Documentation: dev-tools: use literal block instead of code-block
>>
>>  Documentation/dev-tools/ktap.rst | 20 +++++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
> 
> Cheers,
> -- David

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Documentation: dev-tools: begin KTAP spec v2 process

[David Gow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2012 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 7:16 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/17/22 03:42, David Gow wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:26 AM <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> >>
> >> An August 2021 RFC patch [1] to create the KTAP Specification resulted in
> >> some discussion of possible items to add to the specification.
> >> The conversation ended without completing the document.
> >>
> >> Progress resumed with a December 2021 RFC patch [2] to add a KTAP
> >> Specification file (Version 1) to the Linux kernel.  Many of the
> >> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion were not included in
> >> Version 1.  This patch series is intended to revisit some of the
> >> suggestions from the August 2021 discussion.
> >
> > Thanks for kicking this off again. There were definitely a lot of good
> > ideas in those threads which we haven't got to yet.
> >
> > I think there is an interesting line to walk between keeping KTAP
> > sufficiently "TAP-like" (particularly w/r/t being able to reuse
> > existing TAP parsers), and actually adding features, but I don't
> > recall seeing many such issues in the previous threads.
> >
> >>
> >> Patch 1 changes the Specification version to "2-rc" to indicate
> >> that following patches are not yet accepted into a final version 2.
> >
> > I'm okay with this, though I'd want us to be a little careful with the
> > timing so we don't end up with, for example, 5.18 having a KTAP spec
> > called 2-rc which is functionally indistinguishable from v1.
>
> I finally have some time to return to this.
>
> I could host a branch on my kernel.org "frowand" linux kernel.  When
> agreement is reached on a patch on this mail list, I would add it
> to the branch.  When the discussion determines that it is time to
> release a version 2 of the specification I would add one more commit
> that only updates the version.
>
> Does that sound like a good way to proceed?
>

Yeah: that sounds good to me.

-- David

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]