[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
    On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

    > Jan Engelhardt wrote:
    > >> Acked-by:
    > >> Tested-by:
    > >>
    > >
    > > * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the
    > > patch.
    > >
    > Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical.
    > Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
    > patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog". Tested-by implies
    > "I did something that exercised the patch, and it didn't explode" -
    > that's on par with an actual review (ideally all patches would be both
    > tested and reviewed).

    but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading
    the patch." Right?

    IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works...

    > >> Reviewed-by:
    > >>
    > >
    > > * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
    > > look at it in depth
    > >
    > Hm. We have a tension here:
    > * there aren't enough reviewers
    > * some reviews are more useful than others
    > While a review by a trustworthy person is invaluable, we don't want to
    > discourage people from reviewing. A new reviewer's review may not be
    > terribly useful, but a meta-review may help improve it. Or it could be
    > a great review.
    > I guess I'm proposing that we also need to expand the reviewer base, and
    > to do so we need some kind of reviewer-mentoring or metareview process.
    > Of course that could just be an extra burden on the existing (small)
    > trusted reviewer base, but the hope is that over time the reviewer pool
    > size grows enough to make the effort worthwhile...
    > >> Cc:
    > >>
    > >
    > > * Used by original submitter to denote additional maintainers it goes to
    > > * Parties who should be Cced when an a posteriori question comes up
    > >
    > Well, any interested parties, really. I use it for original bug
    > reporters, people who followed up on the report, people who have patches
    > in a nearby area, people who are known to be interested in the affected
    > subsystem, people who have reviewed previous versions of the patch, etc...

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-08 20:13    [W:0.023 / U:70.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site