On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:49:20AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > + (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.
I couldn't agree more, Jon. If we are to have a meaningful reviewed-by tag, it has to be clearly documented as to what responsibilities it places on the reviewer. If someone doesn't want to perform a well conducted review, then they haven't earned the right to issue a Reviewed-by tag - they can use the Acked-by rubber stamp instead. FWIW, w.r.t. XFS patches, we already follow both the letter and intent of your proposed reviewed-by tag for all changes to XFS code and reviewers are currently listed as Signed-off-by in git-commits (our internal SCM records the reviewer(s) and the git export script converts that to s-o-b). It would be much more meaningful if they were exported as Reviewed-by under your definition.... IOWs, I fully support your definition of the Reviewed-by tag. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - 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/