public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
To: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet)
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:06:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071008160603.52f9e343.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10940.1191883390@lwn.net>

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:43:10 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote:

> Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> 
> > Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
> > four tags we use:
> 
> ...or maybe a combination?  How does the following patch look as a way
> to describe how the tags are used and what Reviewed-by, in particular,
> means?
> 
> Perhaps the DCO should move to this file as well?
> 
> jon

Just typos noted below...

> ---
> 
> Add a document on patch tags.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/00-INDEX b/Documentation/00-INDEX
> index 43e89b1..fa1518b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/00-INDEX
> +++ b/Documentation/00-INDEX
> @@ -284,6 +284,8 @@ parport.txt
>  	- how to use the parallel-port driver.
>  parport-lowlevel.txt
>  	- description and usage of the low level parallel port functions.
> +patch-tags
> +	- description of the tags which can be added to patches
>  pci-error-recovery.txt
>  	- info on PCI error recovery.
>  pci.txt
> diff --git a/Documentation/patch-tags b/Documentation/patch-tags
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..fb5f8e1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/patch-tags
> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> +Patches headed for the mainline may contain a variety of tags documenting
> +who played a hand in (or was at least aware of) its progress.  All of these
> +tags have the form:
> +
> +	Something-done-by: Full name <email@address>
> +
> +These tags are:
> +
> +Signed-off-by:  A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the
> +		patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able
> +		to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the
> +		terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.  See
> +		the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in
> +		Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of
> +		Signed-off-by.
> +
> +Acked-by:	The person named (who should be an active developer in the
> +		area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has
> +		no objection to its inclusion.  An Acked-by tag does not
> +		imply any involvement in the development of the patch or
> +		that a detailed review was done.
> +
> +Reviewed-by:	The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according

                                                      acceptable

> +		to the Reviewer's Statement as found at the bottom of this
> +		file.  A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the
> +		patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without
> +		any remaining serious technical issues.  Any interested
> +		reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by
> +		tag for a patch.
> +
> +Cc:		The person named was given the opportunity to comment on
> +		the patch.  This is the only tag which might be added
> +		without an explicit action by the person it names.
> +
> +Tested-by:	The patch has been successfully tested (in some
> +		environment) by the person named.
> +
> +
> +----
> +
> +Reviewer's statement of oversight, v0.02
> +
> +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
> +
> + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
> +     appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. 
> +
> + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> +     communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied with how the
> +     submitter has responded to my comments.
> +
> + (c) While there may (or may not) be things which could be improved with
> +     this submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile
> +     modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would
> +     argue against its inclusion.
> +
> + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I can not

                                                                     cannot

> +     (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
> +     that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
> +     given situation.
> +
> + (e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
> +     public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
> +     tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
> +     indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or
> +     the open source license(s) involved.
> -


---
~Randy

  reply	other threads:[~2007-10-08 23:06 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
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 [this message]
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=20071008160603.52f9e343.randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --to=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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