Hi Leon,

> > 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.

I'd argue that this extra work is needed in the same way a good patch
description is needed.

> 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.

Per default, I do trust a new contributor to have done the review. I
don't want this extra sentence as a proof of that.

The "problem" with a new reviewer is that I don't know if all aspects of
a patch have been reviewed or just a subset. Actually, this holds true
for people I do know just the same way. If a get a Rev-by from Linus
Walleij I am extremly sure the GPIO parts have been throughly checked.
But I still don't know if he had time to check e.g. the locking or not.
There is a huge difference if I get three plain Rev-by or three Rev-by
saying "I did check <xy> but not the media parts".

Thanks for your feedback. I think this clarification was important.

Regards,

   Wolfram