[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
Neil Brown <> wrote:

> I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags. That
> information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
> people in adding them.

Hmm...I was just going to go with the "because I told you so" approach
that I use with my kids. It works so well with them after all.

<pauses to go scream at his kids who have never understood why playing
"Dance Dance Revolution" directly above the office is hard on

I agree with just about everything you've said, and am tweaking things
accordingly. But...

> > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> > + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
> > + submitter has responded to my comments.
> This seems more detailed that necessary. The process (communicated
> back / responded) is not really relevant.

Instead, it seems to me that the process is crucially important.
Reviewed-by shouldn't be a rubber stamp that somebody applies to a
patch; I think it should really imply that issues of interest have been
communicated to the developers. If we are setting expectations for what
Reviewed-by means, I would prefer to leave an explicit mention of
communication in there. If I'm in the minority here, though, it can
certainly come out.



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: 2007-10-09 18:51    [W:0.106 / U:1.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site