From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E43CC77B76 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 16:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229574AbjDQQVx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2023 12:21:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42548 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229944AbjDQQVs (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Apr 2023 12:21:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BEE06A4F for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id kx14so6168696pjb.1 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:21:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681748507; x=1684340507; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=QVoy8j8NyevikFpznNrUpT2G6LOkTy9aRDZ0MdllNSs=; b=BYMc3TY1tDRzjcw6onl1ppZR2hsUQ6zbZMw9Oiyk/308BjTVlQAMBTCtKKObZj8o6w 3+TMPbA6W40tYOtL/OUAr0+O8Tq1WjX8wdze0upp0ep73EciE1FcSP2WEOVzPRiZH+FL FygRQZ+Yn6xVk+WDivPJlBtna9mU1g2onQDoDqP2mIudFgLMzmVvVYWOWb6U+SEVE1uX AO7M420qsRxxGGjFmTbV1ntqzApYRG+Vo/v1uILVoJ1LFlYwgw7hbRfo4UD3w1A4NLqB dtFWj6yuKj7Mtm3K2hx9vHkDAdNVbMFAbqsH9f+9fu4zF4F2ci3rbySIh38so0i8FWun ub/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681748507; x=1684340507; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QVoy8j8NyevikFpznNrUpT2G6LOkTy9aRDZ0MdllNSs=; b=bITKkacdmvwypeNX2oDlXmcqt4Dzppc+tsUiTuOmtp204vCuiw0Ey37Ci2PqjKANU7 EDvJE5bGaj6EKY5yBMI0W24780ss9LkB8xGhsaF17l+3UzMo80o8yN8YFmX40/uR1FX6 tEsmIuSWCgff2BLsZ7HzIUJMHML9Y9ecPHUnwF96l96GGhuJS61cTdqrVL3gQVfVNG6f hdsdQ396IMQ6gCzv7KbZcM4kUu0SgTcPynbRrj+A6tTmS6jdveZNBj89hU7uApE+h6BE 2ND7QE1+hFlbWGsiIcrk/D5Ti+m1lx/wif3z+v7GK3/UdGe7afnFymyMate0RmbjYPx+ v1LA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eFb1pHS6fotzKDKSQlmvd5PKDeVKDDuKXTKE+Y3uNuvayTVUIv bzCMQJNboktNKEUMBl2ZESU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZVu90usKW5drIGTuXxg0pgU1iqYZr/m340NNggim2QjRU7q1zbxGAInEzLuViEpH9LDC4oEA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:2007:b0:d6:7264:f44e with SMTP id w7-20020a056a20200700b000d67264f44emr14294693pzw.3.1681748506834; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (170.102.105.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.105.102.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a22-20020a62bd16000000b0063b59ad4e0dsm6884533pff.118.2023.04.17.09.21.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Glen Choo via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIg?= =?utf-8?B?QXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Glen Choo Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cocci: codify authoring and reviewing practices References: Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:21:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Fri, 14 Apr 2023 18:27:09 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > .... Maybe > the wording should instead be "It's okay to give a Reviewed-by: on a > series that also contains cocci changes when you are unfamiliar with > coccinelle; just state that your Reviewed-by is limited to the other > bits". Or maybe the instructions should just be to give an Acked-by. > You should probably have someone familiar enough with coccinelle that > they know what is worth worrying about weigh in on that aspect. > > But you can have my Acked-by on the other bits. :-) The value of Reviewed-by takes two sides to determine. Even if we reserve a Reviewed-by to "I have reviewed the entirety of this patch, and the patch is something I can stand behind" (as opposed to "my understanding of this patch is iffy in this and that area, but all the other parts of the patch is something I can stand behind"), the value of such a Reviewed-by is conditional to "how well does the reviewer actually know the area?" A drive-by "Reviewed-by:" thrown into a review discussion thread by a total stranger would not carry much weight, until we know how much they are familiar with and how good a taste they have. And honest qualifying comments like "my understanding of this and that area is iffy so I cannot endorse these parts" helps build trust by others in the reviewer who gives such a partial review and we should encourage such behaviour. I agree "Acked-by:" with comments is a good idea. Thanks.