Am 31.10.2013 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending >>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've >>>>>> gotten an Acked-by. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the >>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail >>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line. >>>> >>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by >>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in >>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as >>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes. >>> >>> Nope. If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:". Don't >>> make people infer your Acked-bys. >> >> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there. >> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise. > > I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too. > > The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks > good". You did say that.
I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a "looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an Acked-by and no objection, including none from you. I certainly said nothing at all about the kernel. > At no point did a "rule" get made though. The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by. Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule. No objection against a particular patch function-wise. Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested them. Maybe there's no obligation for picking up tags, but then again you can't go ahead and do statistics over incompletely recorded tags. Regards, Andreas >> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and >> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all, >> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was >> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to >> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as >> pull without Reviewed-by. > > I think you misunderstood. > > I don't care about Acked-bys. They are useless. > > A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys. There are > certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers > that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by. > > But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are > patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't > getting outside review. > > There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to > review more patches on list to prevent the above situation. > >>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have. There is no "rule" stating that >>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list. But I >>> expect that maintainers try to >> >> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and >> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and >> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then >> fine with me. > > Yes, patches should get reviewed. I hope this is obvious to all of us :-) > > I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify > adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list. > > But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys. I'll go > a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every > added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send > myself. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >> >> -- >> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany >> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
