From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:22:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1566296541.2657.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908191010440.2601@hadrien>
On Mon, 2019-08-19 at 10:13 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > On Mon 19-08-19 09:06:26, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat 17-08-19 21:35:29, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd suggest changing the text to read:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by the
> > > > > > maintainer or
> > > > > > reviewer of the the relevant code that the patch is
> > > > > > appropriate for inclusion into the kernel.
> > > > >
> > > > > This would be a positive step forward. I would be in favor
> > > > > of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would also be good to state here, if it isn't stated
> > > > > already, that "reviewer" means "someone who is listed in an
> > > > > R: line in MAINTAINERS".
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that 'R:' entry in MAINTAINERS should be really
> > > > asked for. IMO that is unnecessary bureaucracy and discourages
> > > > review from people that are not core developers. Sure the
> > > > quality of the review may be lower than from core developer but
> > > > still there's some value in it. So I'd really leave it at the
> > > > discretion of the maintainer whether he accepts or just ignores
> > > > Reviewed-by tag.
> > >
> > > Is there some other tag for "I'm interested in and reasonably
> > > knowledgeable about this change and it looks good to me"?
> > >
> > > Note that there is a double "the" in the above text.
> >
> > No. But is there a need for such tag? I, as a maintainer, would
> > like to see in the email where someone offers the Reviewed-by tag,
> > how confident the reviewer feels (otherwise I just make my educated
> > guess). But I don't really see a point in recording this in the
> > changelog. After all the tag in the changelog serves only two
> > purposes I know about - to give credit to the reviewer and to have
> > another person to blame (CC on bug reports ;). So I don't see any
> > need in recording quality of review in the changelog for long-term
> > recording of the fact...
>
> So is there no tag at all for what I describe? Concretely,
> Coccinelle reports bugs via 0-day, sometimes people send me the
> patch, and sometimes I would like to say "yes, I looked at it and it
> seems to be fixing the bug that was reported", without implying that
> I have extensively tested the code. So is there a concise
> unambiguous way to do that?
Yes, that's "Reviewed-by:". If you actually tested it, you'd add a
"Tested-by:" as well. Sometimes people do
Reviewed-by: me@me.com #the bits I understand or care about
But usually it's up to the maintainer of the file to decide whether the
review is meaningful enough to be accepted. Whether the Reviewed-by:
is accepted by the maintainer is completely their decision and really
has nothing to do with R: tags in the Maintainers file.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-20 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-06 14:27 [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful Wolfram Sang
2019-07-06 16:52 ` Leon Romanovsky
2019-07-06 17:17 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-08 10:47 ` Jan Kara
2019-07-08 11:47 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-15 16:11 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-07-08 11:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-07-08 11:59 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-15 15:58 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-07-15 17:00 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-07-15 17:11 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-07-16 21:26 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-08-17 21:35 ` Paul Walmsley
2019-08-19 6:57 ` Jan Kara
2019-08-19 7:06 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-08-19 7:06 ` Julia Lawall
2019-08-19 8:04 ` Jan Kara
2019-08-19 8:13 ` Julia Lawall
2019-08-20 10:22 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2019-08-19 8:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-19 16:16 ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-19 19:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-19 21:03 ` Christian Brauner
2019-07-08 14:57 ` Mark Brown
2019-07-14 9:35 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-07-14 10:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-15 9:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-16 21:16 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-16 21:57 ` Olof Johansson
2019-07-16 22:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-17 3:59 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-07-17 7:31 ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-17 16:05 ` Linus Walleij
2019-07-17 16:40 ` Wolfram Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1566296541.2657.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).