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 74710B88 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03AC671C for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:11:36 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Wolfram Sang Message-ID: <20190715131136.6ec26015@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190706171724.GA12534@kunai> References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190706165214.GB18182@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20190706171724.GA12534@kunai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , Em Sat, 6 Jul 2019 19:17:24 +0200 Wolfram Sang escreveu: > 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. That's a good point. While receiving feedback from some -doc patches I wrote, I guess we currently have something that we can improve for acked-by/reviewed-by tag description: how to indicate a partial review/ack? I received several such acks with things like: For driver_foo: Acked-by : me I also received such acks as: Acked-by : me # driver_foo or: Acked-by : me # for driver_foo I guess we could agree on a "syntax" for that, with could be easily be parsed by scripts, documenting it at Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst. I'm in favor of: Acked-by : me # driver_foo and: Reviewed-by : me # driver_foo Thanks, Mauro