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
next prev parent 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