From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet)
To: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Cc: mgross@linux.intel.com,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:08:52 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <32082.1191870532@lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:05:15 BST." <20071008190515.GU8181@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > A patch which is not "worthwhile" is also not "appropriate". Mere
> > correctness in a mathematical sense is not enough as technical review
> > criterion.
>
> Yes, but there's also such thing as "worthwhile removal".
Good point. So the text should probably say "worthwhile change" rather
than "worthwhile addition." I do believe that thinking about whether
the change as a whole is a desirable thing is an important part of the
review process.
jon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-08 19:09 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
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 [this message]
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=32082.1191870532@lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/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