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 59C23C00 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D91D167F for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:04:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Christian Brauner In-Reply-To: <20190819161624.yeups3ugpyb6d4v2@wittgenstein> Message-ID: References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190708115949.GC1050@kunai> <20190715125800.22a9a979@coco.lan> <20190715170045.GB3068@mit.edu> <20190819065710.GC20455@quack2.suse.cz> <20190819161624.yeups3ugpyb6d4v2@wittgenstein> 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, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:26:01AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner 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. > > > > The R: in MAINTAINERS is there to make sure these people get actually CC'ed > > on patches against that particular subsystem. It does not mean that others > > are not allowed or encouraged to review patches in that area. > > If I may, I agree that only accepting acks/reviews by people in R: is > too strict. It is. > Imho, it sends the wrong message and probably discourages > participation in kernel development. It's also a high bar currently to > get people even listed as R: In my experience people are reluctant to > suggest they be added as R: in that file because it might be conceived > as being overly assertive of ones abilities. One easy fix could be to > encourage maintainers of a given subsystem to be more open to add people > they trust as R: We do, but not over the head of the developer. We ask people before doing that and quite some decline. Thanks, tglx