Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

Scott Preece
2007-10-10T13:41:06Z

On 10/8/07, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:

Some minor rewording suggestions:

> + (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.
---

Replace the last sentence with "I am satisfied with the submitter's
response to my comments." or "The submitter has responded to my
comments in a way that satisfied my concerns."

---
> +
> + (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
> + modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would
> + argue against its inclusion.
---

I would suggest dropping the "(or may not)" as unnecessary, and
changing the "which would" to "that would".

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

>From a legal standpoint, "I do not" might be preferable to "I cannot",
since it disclaims any intention to make such a statement, regardless
of qualification.

---
> + (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.
---

(e) seems over-careful, especially since you're applying it only to
the Review-by tag, while all the other tags would also have the same
concern.

--
scott preece