Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 12:13:53 PM CEST Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jonathan,
> 
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > To throw another element in here, as a maintainer, the level of review
> > done by myself varies a lot depending on
> > 
> > 1. Trust of the submitter.  I won't check register definitions against
> >    data sheets from someone whom history has suggested is careful.
> >    When the submitter is someone new to me, I'm much more likely to
> >    go through these with a fine toothed comb.
> > 
> > 2. Reviews from others.  This is the scalability question.  I have a
> >    number of very good reviewers for my corner of the kernel.  I'll take
> >    a much more superficial look at new code if one of them as given a
> >    reviewed-by.
> > 
> > 3. Chances of side effects.  Core code patches always need (ideally
> >    multiple) thorough reviews and even then I'll take a careful look
> >    at them and sometimes spin up some additional tests.
> > 
> > I'm guessing many others follow a similar 'risk' assessment based
> > approach.
> 
> I certainly do and from my observation this seems to be a pretty common
> modus operandi.
> 
> > Should we be reflecting that in the tags that maintainers
> > add?  Normally it's all just hidden in a signed-off-by.
> 
> So we'd need to come up with another set of complicated rules which merily
> create the illusion of an objective and quantifyable meaning of these tags.
> 
> Even if we agree on a set of new tags the usage will still be based on
> individual interpretation, which brings us back to square one.
> 
> So no, let's just accept that these things are subjective and apply common
> sense to make the best use of them.

I totally agree.

Cheers,
Rafael