On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:51:02PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 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.

> > 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.

There's a world of difference between thanking people for review and a
detailed account of all the changes made in every single iteration of
the review.