From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:27:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2149 bytes --]
In the parts of the Kernel I work with, reviews are usually given by a plain
tag. I think this is not enough to keep a good code quality, so I'll start with
my theses first:
1) we need a better distinction between Acked-by: and Reviewed-by: and encourage
stricter use of that
2) Reviewed-by should have a description of the review done (and the review not
done)
3) trivial patches should rather get Acked-by
4) failing the above should be constructively criticized
Some more words about each item:
1) I am definitely not striving for a clear line, that's impossible. Yet, from
what I experience, the overlap between the two became large. It reduces the
extra value a Reviewed-by should have.
2) A short paragraph will usually do. Of course, trust helps a lot, but it
doesn't solve everything. Trusted people can be in a hurry, too, etc. And for
people I don't know, the plain tag doesn't tell me much. Examples for short
descriptions: "I can't say much about the media part, but the I2C part is
proper" or "I also checked the documentation and I think this is a good
approach to overcome the issue" or "All my concerns in the preceding
discussions have been addressed"
3) Again, no hard line on what is trivial can be made. Still, I think it will
add to the extra value of a review tag if it is only applied to something which
is non-trivial, so we should try to have a better distinction.
4) We are in such a need for people reviewing that it can be challenging for
maintainers to be picky about reviews (you can partly include me here). A
kernel-wide movement aiming for a better distinction between ack (= looks good)
and review helps both maintainers and developers, I think.
These things will hopefully help me as a maintainer to better evaluate trust
for a patch based on the tags given. So, I will try that in the I2C subsystem.
I would prefer, though, not to be an island but to have something which is
accepted kernel-wide.
Disclaimer: I am mainly active in the drivers section of Linux. If reviews are
handled differently in other parts, I am all ears.
Well, I am all ears, anyhow. Opinions?
Kind regards,
Wolfram
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2019-07-06 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-06 14:27 Wolfram Sang [this message]
2019-07-06 16:52 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful 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
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=20190706142738.GA6893@kunai \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.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).