From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79A4DCCE for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B26012E for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1566296541.2657.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Julia Lawall , Jan Kara Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:22:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190708115949.GC1050@kunai> <20190715125800.22a9a979@coco.lan> <20190715170045.GB3068@mit.edu> <20190819065710.GC20455@quack2.suse.cz> <20190819080440.GA2491@quack2.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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