Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

[corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet)]

Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags.  That
> information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
> people in adding them.

Hmm...I was just going to go with the "because I told you so" approach
that I use with my kids.  It works so well with them after all.  

<pauses to go scream at his kids who have never understood why playing
"Dance Dance Revolution" directly above the office is hard on
productivity> 

I agree with just about everything you've said, and am tweaking things
accordingly.  But...

> > + (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.
> 
> This seems more detailed that necessary.  The process (communicated
> back / responded) is not really relevant.

Instead, it seems to me that the process is crucially important.
Reviewed-by shouldn't be a rubber stamp that somebody applies to a
patch; I think it should really imply that issues of interest have been
communicated to the developers.  If we are setting expectations for what
Reviewed-by means, I would prefer to leave an explicit mention of
communication in there.  If I'm in the minority here, though, it can
certainly come out.

Thanks,

jon