Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 productivity> 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. Thanks, jon - 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/
