public inbox for ksummit@lists.linux.dev
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc: ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:58:00 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190715125800.22a9a979@coco.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190708115949.GC1050@kunai>

Em Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:59:50 +0200
Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> escreveu:

> Hi Geert,
> 
> > > 1) we need a better distinction between Acked-by: and Reviewed-by: and encourage
> > >    stricter use of that  
> > 
> > Before we had "Reviewed-by", "Acked-by" meant "looks OK to me".
> > Then we got "Reviewed-by" for more thorough reviews.  
> 
> This is what still makes most sense to me. You can express e.g. that you
> like a patch series and approve the general approach taken but haven't
> gone for the gory details -> Acked-by (a short explaining paragraph
> would make sense, then, too)
> 
> Is that old fashioned?
> 
> Acked-by only for maintainers doesn't make sense to me. Neiher does when
> Acked-by has a different meaning for maintainers and non-maintainers.

On my case, when I receive an Acked-by, I assume that this came
from a maintainer (either a subsystem maintainer or a driver
maintainer) - as I expect that non-maintainers (and reviewers)
will either send me a reviewed-by or a tested-by.

When a review a code that will be merged via someone's else tree,
I usually either give:

- Acked-by - if it is something that touches the subsystem
  I maintain and will be merged via some other tree, but I 
  didn't make a comprehensive review;

- Reviewed-by - if I did a comprehensive review. I can either
  be the maintainer or not of the files touched by the patch.

So, I usually expect the others do about the same.

Looking at Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst:

	 - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
	   maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
	   inclusion into the kernel.

	 - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness;
	   see the reviewer's statement in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
	   for more detail.

I guess the descriptions are already enough to describe those
tags.

Thanks,
Mauro

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-15 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-06 14:27 [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful Wolfram Sang
2019-07-06 16:52 ` Leon Romanovsky
2019-07-06 17:17   ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-08 10:47     ` Jan Kara
2019-07-08 11:47       ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-15 16:11     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-07-08 11:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-07-08 11:59   ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-15 15:58     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab [this message]
2019-07-15 17:00       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-07-15 17:11         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-07-16 21:26         ` Wolfram Sang
2019-08-17 21:35         ` Paul Walmsley
2019-08-19  6:57           ` Jan Kara
2019-08-19  7:06             ` Jiri Kosina
2019-08-19  7:06             ` Julia Lawall
2019-08-19  8:04               ` Jan Kara
2019-08-19  8:13                 ` Julia Lawall
2019-08-20 10:22                   ` James Bottomley
2019-08-19  8:26             ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-19 16:16               ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-19 19:04                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-19 21:03                   ` Christian Brauner
2019-07-08 14:57   ` Mark Brown
2019-07-14  9:35 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-07-14 10:13   ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-15  9:10     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-07-16 21:16     ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-16 21:57       ` Olof Johansson
2019-07-16 22:27         ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-17  3:59           ` Randy Dunlap
2019-07-17  7:31             ` Wolfram Sang
2019-07-17 16:05               ` Linus Walleij
2019-07-17 16:40                 ` Wolfram Sang

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=20190715125800.22a9a979@coco.lan \
    --to=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox