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 03B4DC84 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl (cloudserver094114.home.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4541A878 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:10:15 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Thomas Gleixner Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 11:10:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1911391.948PA3fygm@kreacher> In-Reply-To: References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190714103509.2dd72c90@archlinux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sunday, July 14, 2019 12:13:53 PM CEST Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Jonathan, > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > To throw another element in here, as a maintainer, the level of review > > done by myself varies a lot depending on > > > > 1. Trust of the submitter. I won't check register definitions against > > data sheets from someone whom history has suggested is careful. > > When the submitter is someone new to me, I'm much more likely to > > go through these with a fine toothed comb. > > > > 2. Reviews from others. This is the scalability question. I have a > > number of very good reviewers for my corner of the kernel. I'll take > > a much more superficial look at new code if one of them as given a > > reviewed-by. > > > > 3. Chances of side effects. Core code patches always need (ideally > > multiple) thorough reviews and even then I'll take a careful look > > at them and sometimes spin up some additional tests. > > > > I'm guessing many others follow a similar 'risk' assessment based > > approach. > > I certainly do and from my observation this seems to be a pretty common > modus operandi. > > > Should we be reflecting that in the tags that maintainers > > add? Normally it's all just hidden in a signed-off-by. > > So we'd need to come up with another set of complicated rules which merily > create the illusion of an objective and quantifyable meaning of these tags. > > Even if we agree on a set of new tags the usage will still be based on > individual interpretation, which brings us back to square one. > > So no, let's just accept that these things are subjective and apply common > sense to make the best use of them. I totally agree. Cheers, Rafael