From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B065CA83 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36B78201B4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:51:07 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.19]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5BE3E40040 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:51:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s4SGo8X344040214 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 18:50:08 +0200 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s4SGp402019440 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:51:04 -0600 Message-ID: <1401295862.13546.109.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> From: Mimi Zohar To: Mark Brown Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:51:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140528163902.GA5099@sirena.org.uk> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140528143246.GV15585@mwanda> <20140528163902.GA5099@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Dan Carpenter , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 17:39 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:39:15PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > My approach has been to insist on an in-patch revision log which gets > > included in the commit. And that for any changes and bugs spotted the > > reviewer/commenter must be acknowleged. See e.g. > > d978ef14456a38034f6c0e for a very nice example of that. But that's > > also a good example for no tag to acknowledge all the work that went > > into this review/patch, since I've done the final review myself and > > only put my sob onto the patch. > > This does mean that the final changelogs that get included in the kernel > get very large and noisy and is relying on the submitters doing a good > job paying attention to review comments in the first place, recording > exactly what changed and so on. They are sometimes useful but normally > I'm finding very little value in the changelogs in the first place, > generally it doesn't really matter what the problems were in any > previous versions. True, but when you have to squash patches there needs to be at least some recognition of who contributed what. Mimi