All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:06:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <470A708D.4080905@goop.org>

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> Acked-by:
> >> Tested-by:
> >>     
> >
> > * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the 
> > patch.
> >   
> 
> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical. 
> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
> patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog".  Tested-by implies
> "I did something that exercised the patch, and it didn't explode" -
> that's on par with an actual review (ideally all patches would be both
> tested and reviewed).

but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading
the patch."  Right?

IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works...


> >> Reviewed-by:
> >>     
> >
> > * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
> >   look at it in depth
> >   
> 
> Hm.  We have a tension here:
> 
>     * there aren't enough reviewers
>     * some reviews are more useful than others
> 
> While a review by a trustworthy person is invaluable, we don't want to
> discourage people from reviewing.  A new reviewer's review may not be
> terribly useful, but a meta-review may help improve it.  Or it could be
> a great review.
> 
> I guess I'm proposing that we also need to expand the reviewer base, and
> to do so we need some kind of reviewer-mentoring or metareview process. 
> Of course that could just be an extra burden on the existing (small)
> trusted reviewer base, but the hope is that over time the reviewer pool
> size grows enough to make the effort worthwhile...
> 
> 
> >> Cc:
> >>     
> >
> > * Used by original submitter to denote additional maintainers it goes to
> > * Parties who should be Cced when an a posteriori question comes up
> >   
> 
> Well, any interested parties, really.  I use it for original bug
> reporters, people who followed up on the report, people who have patches
> in a nearby area, people who are known to be interested in the affected
> subsystem, people who have reviewed previous versions of the patch, etc...

---
~Randy

  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-08 18:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-08 17:24 RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight Jonathan Corbet
2007-10-08 17:31 ` Pekka Enberg
2007-10-08 17:37 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-08 17:45   ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-10-08 18:01     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-08 18:06       ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2007-10-08 18:16         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-08 18:34         ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 18:52           ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-10-08 19:04             ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 19:26             ` Scott Preece
2007-10-08 20:16               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-10-09  2:07                 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09  6:11                   ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-09  6:27                     ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-09  6:39                       ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-09  6:47                         ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 18:26     ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 18:40     ` Roland Dreier
2007-10-08 19:35     ` Scott Preece
2007-10-08 20:33     ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-10-08 21:38       ` Theodore Tso
2007-10-08 22:18         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-10-08 23:20         ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-08 22:43   ` Jonathan Corbet
2007-10-08 23:06     ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-09  3:34       ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-10-08 23:30     ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-10-09 10:28       ` Alan Cox
2007-10-08 23:42     ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-09  0:05     ` Neil Brown
2007-10-09 16:49       ` Jonathan Corbet
2007-10-09 17:25         ` Roland Dreier
2007-10-10  0:06         ` David Chinner
2007-10-15  0:27           ` Neil Brown
2007-10-09 17:44       ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-15  0:35         ` Neil Brown
2007-10-15 14:32           ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-10 13:40     ` Scott Preece
2007-10-08 18:40 ` Mark Gross
2007-10-08 18:53   ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 19:05     ` Al Viro
2007-10-08 19:08       ` Jonathan Corbet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --to=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=jengelh@computergmbh.de \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.