On Monday, 8 October 2007 23:38, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a > > patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to > > the maintainer. > > > > None of these are indicative of the authority of the person acking, > > reviewing, testing, or nacking. That's only as good as the trust in the > > person signing. > > I would tend to agree. Right now I think the problem is that we are > getting too little reviews, not enough. And someone who reviews > patches, even if unknown, could be building up expertise that > eventually would make them a valued developer, even while they are > doing us a service. > > The concern that I suspect some people have is what if this gets > abused by people who don't really bother to do a full review of a > patch before they ack it. We could ask reviewers to include a URL to > an LKML archive of their review, to make it easier to find a review of > a patch so later on people can judge how effective they their review > was. Unfortunately, this would be an added burden for the regular > reviewers, so I doubt this would be well accepted as a practice. My > suggestion is to not worry about this for now, and see how well it > works out in practice. If we start getting half a dozen or more > Reviewed-by: where the patch is pretty clearly not getting adequately > reviewed, or where someone is obviously abusing the system, and social > pressures aren't working, we can try to figure out then how we want to > address that problem then. Let's not make the process too complicated > unless we know it's necessary. Premature complexity is almost as bad > as premature optimization....
I agree. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/