kernel development process question, patch review

kernel development process question, patch review

[Tobin C. Harding]

If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change
as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that
the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or
is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the
patch?

Continuing on this theme, should one add a Suggested-by: tag in the
previous situation. Some where Documentation/process it states that no
tag except the CC tag should be added without the authority of the
person being named?

thanks,
Tobin.

kernel development process question, patch review

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:35:33PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change
> as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that
> the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or
> is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the
> patch?

If you were a reviewer, which would you like to see happen if you took
the time to review someone else's work?

> Continuing on this theme, should one add a Suggested-by: tag in the
> previous situation. Some where Documentation/process it states that no
> tag except the CC tag should be added without the authority of the
> person being named?

Suggested-by: is usually for the whole idea of the patch itself, not for
revisions within a patch.

good luck!

greg k-h

kernel development process question, patch review

[Ozgur Karatas]

Hello,

I think the list idea is no need for confusion, it is desirable to provide people with a new kernel newbies update to this list with a help and a quick solution to their problems.
This is like pre-kernel training.

TO and CC already come with the get_maintainer.pl script.

TO: Primary responsible
CC: development group + kernel mailing list
Kernelnewbies = kernelnewbies help

Regards,

Ozgur

21.02.2017, 04:44, "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>:
> If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change
> as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that
> the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or
> is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the
> patch?
>
> Continuing on this theme, should one add a Suggested-by: tag in the
> previous situation. Some where Documentation/process it states that no
> tag except the CC tag should be added without the authority of the
> person being named?
>
> thanks,
> Tobin.

kernel development process question, patch review

[Ozgur Karatas]

Hello,

I think the list idea is no need for confusion, it is desirable to provide people with a new kernel newbies update to this list with a help and a quick solution to their problems.
This is like pre-kernel training.

TO and CC already come with the get_maintainer.pl script.

TO: Primary responsible
CC: development group + kernel mailing list
Kernelnewbies = kernelnewbies help

Regards,

Ozgur

> 21.02.2017, 04:44, "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>:
>> ?If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change
>> ?as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that
>> ?the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or
>> ?is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the
>> ?patch?
>>
>> ?Continuing on this theme, should one add a Suggested-by: tag in the
>> ?previous situation. Some where Documentation/process it states that no
>> ?tag except the CC tag should be added without the authority of the
>> ?person being named?
>>
>> ?thanks,
>> ?Tobin.

kernel development process question, patch review

[valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:35:33 +1100, "Tobin C. Harding" said:
> If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change
> as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that
> the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or
> is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the
> patch?

If it's something trivial, like changing a variable name to something
better, or clarifying a comment block, just cc: the reviewer on the next
revision of the patch.

If the reviewer suggest a major overhaul ("the goal looks good, but you
should probably use this other API" or similar), and it's something that
will take a bit of time, you should probably send a quick "Yes, I've put
that on my to-do list" note so the reviewer knows you read their note.

And of course, if you're not sure or disagree with the reviewer, that's
the time to start bouncing polite e-mails back and forth until you're on
the same page.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 484 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20170221/fac7d526/attachment.bin