public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:06:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <470A708D.4080905@goop.org>

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:01:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> Acked-by:
> >> Tested-by:
> >>     
> >
> > * Used by random people to express their (dis)like/experience with the 
> > patch.
> >   
> 
> Tested-by is more valuable than acked-by, because its empirical. 
> Acked-by generally means "I don't generally object to the idea of the
> patch, but may not have read beyond the changelog".  Tested-by implies
> "I did something that exercised the patch, and it didn't explode" -
> that's on par with an actual review (ideally all patches would be both
> tested and reviewed).

but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading
the patch."  Right?

IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works...


> >> Reviewed-by:
> >>     
> >
> > * I am maintaner or an 'important' person and have had a
> >   look at it in depth
> >   
> 
> Hm.  We have a tension here:
> 
>     * there aren't enough reviewers
>     * some reviews are more useful than others
> 
> While a review by a trustworthy person is invaluable, we don't want to
> discourage people from reviewing.  A new reviewer's review may not be
> terribly useful, but a meta-review may help improve it.  Or it could be
> a great review.
> 
> I guess I'm proposing that we also need to expand the reviewer base, and
> to do so we need some kind of reviewer-mentoring or metareview process. 
> Of course that could just be an extra burden on the existing (small)
> trusted reviewer base, but the hope is that over time the reviewer pool
> size grows enough to make the effort worthwhile...
> 
> 
> >> Cc:
> >>     
> >
> > * Used by original submitter to denote additional maintainers it goes to
> > * Parties who should be Cced when an a posteriori question comes up
> >   
> 
> Well, any interested parties, really.  I use it for original bug
> reporters, people who followed up on the report, people who have patches
> in a nearby area, people who are known to be interested in the affected
> subsystem, people who have reviewed previous versions of the patch, etc...

---
~Randy

  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-08 18:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-08 17:24 RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight Jonathan Corbet
2007-10-08 17:31 ` Pekka Enberg
2007-10-08 17:37 ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-08 17:45   ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-10-08 18:01     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-08 18:06       ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2007-10-08 18:16         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-08 18:34         ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 18:52           ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-10-08 19:04             ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 19:26             ` Scott Preece
2007-10-08 20:16               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-10-09  2:07                 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09  6:11                   ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-09  6:27                     ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-09  6:39                       ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-09  6:47                         ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 18:26     ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 18:40     ` Roland Dreier
2007-10-08 19:35     ` Scott Preece
2007-10-08 20:33     ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-10-08 21:38       ` Theodore Tso
2007-10-08 22:18         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-10-08 23:20         ` Oleg Verych
2007-10-08 22:43   ` Jonathan Corbet
2007-10-08 23:06     ` Randy Dunlap
2007-10-09  3:34       ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-10-08 23:30     ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-10-09 10:28       ` Alan Cox
2007-10-08 23:42     ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-09  0:05     ` Neil Brown
2007-10-09 16:49       ` Jonathan Corbet
2007-10-09 17:25         ` Roland Dreier
2007-10-10  0:06         ` David Chinner
2007-10-15  0:27           ` Neil Brown
2007-10-09 17:44       ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-15  0:35         ` Neil Brown
2007-10-15 14:32           ` Sam Ravnborg
2007-10-10 13:40     ` Scott Preece
2007-10-08 18:40 ` Mark Gross
2007-10-08 18:53   ` Stefan Richter
2007-10-08 19:05     ` Al Viro
2007-10-08 19:08       ` Jonathan Corbet

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=20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --to=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=jengelh@computergmbh.de \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
    --cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
    /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