From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:43009 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752338AbYBLVgw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:36:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:36:20 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) In-Reply-To: <20080212212005.GA22309@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <20080211211751.3e265754@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080211.221126.230471463.davem@davemloft.net> <47B1CB08.4020101@garzik.org> <20080212174824.GA1919@kroah.com> <20080212191552.GA20883@kroah.com> <20080212194651.GI27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080212205051.GB21650@kroah.com> <20080212210808.GJ27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080212212005.GA22309@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg KH Cc: Al Viro , Jeff Garzik , David Miller , arjan@infradead.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > Yes, I agree, there are lots of examples of this, but the overall > majority are reviewed by 2 people at least (or sure as hell should be, > maybe we need to bring into existance the "reviewed-by" marking to > ensure this.) Well, I don't really "review" any patches that come through Andrew. What I do is: - global search-and-replace Andrew's "acked-by:" with one that is both him and me (that way I make sure that I _only_ sign off on patches that he has signed off on!) - look through all the commit *messages* (but not patches). This sometimes involves also editing up grammar etc - some of those messages just make me wince - but it also tends to include things like adding commit one-liner information if only a git commit ID is mentioned etc. - and only for areas that I feel competent in, I look at the patches too. So, to take an example, when Andrew passes on uml patches that only touch arch/um and include/asm-um, my sign-off does not mean *any* kind of review at all. It's purely a sign that it's passed the sign-off requirements properly. When it comes to VM issues or other things, things are different, and I actually review the patch (and occasionally send it back with "nope, I'm not applying this"). But for stuff that comes through Andrew, that's probably less than a quarter of the patches. And I don't mark the ones I've reviewed specially in any way. And I suspect I'm not at all alone in this. People simply have maintainers they trust (and _need_ to trust in order to not become a bottleneck). Linus