Re: [PULL] more gvt-next for 4.16

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 2017.12.21 19:07:07 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 02:43:06AM +0000, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
>> dim apply-pull drm-intel-next-queued
>> 
>> https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git tags/gvt-next-2017-12-22
>> From https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux
>>  * tag                         gvt-next-2017-12-22 -> FETCH_HEAD
>> dim: ERROR: 6660c07ab5d3a1388b07af55b2503dd7b2cc61f7 is lacking mandatory review, aborting
>>
>
> Looks dim doesn't allow committer == author without ack or r-b? Is
> this really mandatory required?

Yes. We want a minimum of two people looking at each patch. It's pretty
much irrelevant if the committer/maintainer is the author or not. 2*sob
or sob+rb or sob+ack, or more for more complicated things.

It's unfortunately common that the "obviously correct and trivial" patch
quickly committed by the author without anyone else looking at it is
actually buggy...

> If yes, I will apply this rule for gvt tree as well and encourage gvt
> developer to send a-b/r-b mail as looks people more like to use IM to
> exchange review comment..

We don't have a strict rule to always send acks or rb by mail. IRC or IM
is fine too for simple things. But we want to record the acks and rb in
the commit regardless. When I push patches that got IRC review, I add
the tags, and typically reply with something along the lines of, "Pushed
with J. Random Hacker's IRC review".

That said, I do encourage explicit ack/rb messages on the lists for
non-trivial things in the interest of open development and transparency.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx