Re: How to improve the quality of the kernel?

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Monday 18 June 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > despite the fact that audit takes
> > more time/knowledge then making the patch you will end up with zero credit
> > if patch turns out to be (luckily) correct.  Even if you find out issues
> > and report them you are still on mercy of author for being credited
> 
> If we introduce a "Reviewed-by" with reasonably clear semantics
> (different from Signed-off-by; e.g. the reviewer is not a middle-man in
> patch forwarding; the reviewer might have had remaining reservations...
> very similar to but not entirely the same as "Acked-by" as currently
> defined in -mm) --- and also make the already somewhat established
> "Tested-by" more official, --- then the maintainers could start to make
> it a habit to add Reviewed-by and Tested-by.
> 
> Plus, reviewers and testers could formally reply with Reviewed-by and
> Tested-by lines to patch postings and even could explicitly ask the
> maintainer to add these lines.

Sounds great.

> > so from personal POV you are much better to wait and fix issues after they
> > hit mainline kernel.  You have to choose between being a good citizen and
> > preventing kernel regressions or being bastard and getting the credit. ;)
> > 
> > If you happen to be maintainer of the affected code the choice is similar
> > with more pros for letting the patch in especially if you can't afford the
> > time to do audit (and by being maintainer you are guaranteed to be heavily
> > time constrained).
> 
> I don't think that a maintainer (who signs off on patches after all) can
> easily afford to take the "bastard approach".  I may be naive.

Well, I'm not doing it myself but I find it tempting... ;)

In case of being maintainer "bastard approach" is more about not discouraging
developers by holding patches for too long than about getting credit.

Bart