Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

Mark Gross
2007-10-08T18:41:30Z

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:
>
> (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 addition to the kernel, and (2) free of serious known
> issues which would argue against its inclusion.

C-1 "worthwhile addition..." Probably shouldn't be part of this. That's
what additional Signed off by ACK's provide. I think reviewed by should
limit its scope to code correctness leaving the subjective "worthwhile"
statements are better expressed with other tags.

>
> (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I can not
> (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.
> -

I think this is a good thing to have, although recruiting reviews remains
an open issue.

I think it would be easier to recruit patch testers than reviewers
should a Tested-by: tag be considered as well?

--mgross