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 26A14AF1 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 15:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.228]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86ADB201CF for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 15:17:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:17:28 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Olof Johansson Message-ID: <20140530111728.19902fc4@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140529182753.GJ25041@thunk.org> <700704721.GMn4j9GJx9@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 29 May 2014 14:03:16 -0700 Olof Johansson wrote: > What are we really trying to fix here? Is the current process really > broken or are we trying to create more process that's not needed for > some other reason? The only reason I'm actually for adding another tag is that I get confused in what to tag something with. I get Cc'd on most things related to tracing or x86 or scheduling. Yes, I'm the maintainer of tracing, but the code I'm Cc'd on is about tracing a particular subsystem that I do not have the expertise to really review the patch that is changing. I'm assuming they just want me to ack that the tracing parts are correct. I don't add a reviewed-by because I'm not saying that I review the guts of the change, just the tracing parts. I send an Acked-by, which you could argue that as maintainer of tracing it fits. But really, the code is completely self contained in some particular subsystem that I have no connection with, besides that they are using my tracing infrastructure. The maintainers may want my Acked-by to give them a warm fuzzy feeling that they did the tracing correct, but I don't want others to think that I'm in any way a maintainer of their system. This is why I would like to see a maintainer only tag. For others that are reviewing the change logs, they can see, "oh this person must be important to require the approved-by tag on this commit". Then I get Cc'd on x86 and scheduling because I do work there, but I'm far from a maintainer of that code. If I get a chance, I will do a quick review and send a Acked-by, especially if it touches the code I've changed. But I may not have time to review it enough to designate a reviewed-by tag. > > As a maintainer for arm-soc, I know which subsystem maintainers I > should get an Acked-by before I'm ok merging in a branch with, say, > some driver changes from a platform maintainer. I mostly know because > we keep intersecting with the same subsystems, but for new ones > there's one natural place I go to look: MAINTAINERS. Figuring out > merge paths and when something should go through our tree instead of > the maintainers tree is always going to be something where people > actually need to talk to each other and make a decision, I don't think > we can make tools and process for it. > > Renaming the tag that they use isn't going to change the due diligence > I have to make (I still need to make sure they're actually the right > person to give it out, etc). And I'm definitely not worried by the > possible conflict of the "I gave this a casual review and I think we > should let it go in" acks since a maintainer is unlikely to give out > those kind of acks to code that he would otherwise merge himself. You also are forgetting that you push to Linus. Now this may be a question to Linus if he would like a separate tag. If he notices that you included a change from another subsystem, he will need to check if you got all the necessary acked-bys from the maintainers. If there's a bunch of Acked-bys he needs to make sure the maintainer is one of them. Having a single Approved-by may facilitate this for him. -- Steve