On Sat, 2016-07-16 at 15:34 +0200, Michael Thayer wrote: > On 15.07.2016 17:33, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 15:56 +0200, Michael Thayer wrote: > > > > > I know it has just been two days, but still, a polite ping. I would > > > also generally be interested in the question of what I can do to get > > > this sort of patch moving. Would reviewing other people's patches be > > > the right way to go, or creating a tree on fd.o? Or something else? > > > > I do find seeing my own patches reviewed to be a good reminder to > > review and merge others, yeah. Likewise pull requests are a slightly > > stronger statement that someone thinks the patches are ready to merge > > (from fdo or github or wherever, it really doesn't matter). > > > Next question then: how thorough a review is required for a "reviewed > by" tag? Instinctively I do not want to give that tag to patches that > touch code I do not already know reasonably well, but I can understand > that you might want to relax that a bit if there are simply not enough > people reviewing.
Sanity check, really. Typically what I'm looking for when I do reviews is: - does the commit message describe the problem and its solution - does the code change look like it matches the solution described - does the code change obviously introduce any new problems (new warnings, undefined behaviour, memory leak, etc) If what you're trying to say about a particular change is "this looks sane but I don't claim to be an expert" feel free to say Acked-by instead of Reviewed-by, either is sufficient. I'm going to at least glance over changes before pushing in any case. - ajax _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
