From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756654AbXJHSRM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:17:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753603AbXJHSQ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:16:58 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:35625 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753573AbXJHSQ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:16:58 -0400 Message-ID: <470A73E9.4080504@goop.org> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:16:09 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070727) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Dunlap CC: Jan Engelhardt , Sam Ravnborg , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight References: <25555.1191864285@lwn.net> <20071008173706.GA12026@uranus.ravnborg.org> <470A708D.4080905@goop.org> <20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20071008110614.dd671fc7.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Randy Dunlap wrote: > but Tested-by: doesn't have to involve any "actually looking at/reading > the patch." Right? > > IOW, the patch could be ugly as sin but it works... > Sure, absolutely. I never said its a substitute for review. An ugly working patch is useful, because its the raw material for a nice working patch. A nice non-working patch can be framed and admired from a distance, but it isn't terribly useful. J