Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful

From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:13:37 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908191010440.2601@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190819080440.GA2491@quack2.suse.cz>

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?

julia

>
> 								Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>