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 A21AF9B1 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:39:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41677201A5 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:39:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:39:02 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Daniel Vetter Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="huq684BweRXVnRxX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --huq684BweRXVnRxX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJThhEcAAoJELSic+t+oim9fzwQAIRj67Af4d/sYdIRc51a+oIO ycQNgUAxm3dqq4Ik76SdY9v3fUw204ztUTHSJ2Ju2KYFSBSkOZxYAhkS/UONkf93 esn8tvp66azXmcSLXQULrUoX9puTRvkTiki067E1NaeZhByYMhCwrmBarbXQOELP PnzCCgPmwyomTauj2ssLJnwXcmP7G2AEOqenlWqLXekeAvt5ipEiOg8o04eaEcIf +3tx26z82y/IiCrfnIwiJaL410GL+CkmieayawXHLzXi5SmK96Y04ip5721DcVDP fETFV6vj6Hq13J3BeOt+YY7bEgju+Y+GIUwY8tY/YeCpdFisU/AiNVNFxfwEtUL7 EC46I4Kt1eoQ+FlmwNRC32RKrJkz8BNhQ3c3C8Rwa4trHK04CiP7wDgl0qnkWI09 twlLTHVlRTF6Wq2cSizNP3g14LtcbRTE/MfH+HuckjM5eACs5MVpq+IJdX1P6LBy KzNOB22RotKr8mMYVSyTJD/OTvE7CYsIn8QtcukgWYzhlFt+eSo6n0eFk7FFmXKT +stSiZmFE++Vc7AEpq7PEA7P7Kel8gteGxtcTTkdrJIKFyFIqIFJC3y6KNRDHeBR HxOxRxXDs9ytICa54XA9iKd4duTCkUODWlSB5kNm6a6axyB4XeklNgervq5KKtSr rNNfoQw2YnL46XA2v8V5 =aAQg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --huq684BweRXVnRxX--