Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
> Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
> received on their way into the mainline.  That tag has made an
> occasional appearance since then, but there has not yet been a
> discussion of what it really means.  So it has not yet brought a whole
> lot of value to the process.
> 
> As I was trying to sleep last night, it occurred to me that what we
> might need is an equivalent of the DCO for the Reviewed-by tag.  To that
> end, I dedicated a few minutes of my life to the following bit of text.
> It's really just meant to be a starting point for the discussion.  Is
> the following something close to what we understand Reviewed-by to mean? 
> 
> jon
> 
> 
> Reviewer's statement of oversight v0.01
> 
> By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:

snip...

Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
four tags we use:

Signed-of-by:
Acked-by:
Reviewed-by:
Cc:
Tested-by:

OK - make it five then. I continously to see people mixing up especially
Acked-by: and Signed-of-by: both here at lkml but especially at the
arm-kernel list (the only other Linux dev list I follow atm). I do
beleive we see similar pattern in the other linux-dev lists where
people are confused by these tags and need a short two line summery for 
each of them.

	Sam