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 B027BC64 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61BC89B for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:13:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Jan Kara In-Reply-To: <20190819080440.GA2491@quack2.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190708115949.GC1050@kunai> <20190715125800.22a9a979@coco.lan> <20190715170045.GB3068@mit.edu> <20190819065710.GC20455@quack2.suse.cz> <20190819080440.GA2491@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 > SUSE Labs, CR >