Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify half-baked review tags

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 01:19:14PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > >> "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that *the patch* has been reviewed and
> > >> found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:"
> > > 
> > > So, for the SPI patch: if someone spent time and reviewed the complex
> > > core changes, but only 2 out of dozens of drivers, this would be an Ack
> > > according to you. I would, however, understand that this person doesn't
> > 
> > No, and I explained this in this commit msg. That person reviewed the
> > MAIN concept of the patch.
> 
> With that MAIN concept emphasized, I am okay with your reasoning and
> agree. Before (I cite, upmost paragraph) "*the patch*" could be
> interpreted as 100% of the patch (including dumb driver conversions).

...which may lead to discouragement of reviewing such a patch.
At least that's how I read the point.

> > "Reviewing pieces of the patch while ignoring the main part of it, is
> > much closer to Acknowledgment, thus Ack, and "Reviewed-by" credit should
> > not be applicable."
> 
> I agree. As stated before, I don't care so much. I am glad you do :)
> I'll happily take the "# subpart" potion of your patch here.
> 
> > Nowhere in my patch here I said you CANNOT review part of the patch or
> > cannot even leave Rb tag for such case, right? What are we discussing
> > now, exactly?
> 
> I hope the misunderstanding has been resolved in the first paragraph.
> 
> > Do you agree that if person skips the main point of the patch, the hard
> > part, and reviews only less important part, that looks more as an Ack,
> > than Rb, considering how "Reviewer's statement of oversight" is worded?
> 
> Sure. It is not so important to me, but yes, I agree.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko