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 C3D651DBE for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:52:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C701B70D for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:52:14 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Wolfram Sang Message-ID: <20190706165214.GB18182@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> 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 Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > 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 Agree > > 2) Reviewed-by should have a description of the review done (and the review not > done) IMHO, this path of thinking will lead us to less reviews due to an extra work and wouldn't bring an extra quality which we want. Right now, everything is built on trust and it will continue to be after we will demand to add extra sentence. It means that we don't fully trust in Reviewed-by of one time contributors now and we won't trust in their description of their Reviewed-by either. Thanks