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 ESMTPS id 3241B9FB for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DEDEA for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:53:16 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Frank Rowand Message-ID: <20150709185316.GO11162@sirena.org.uk> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <1481488.5WJFbB0Dlm@vostro.rjw.lan> <1436341028.2136.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150708080032.CE89E4306F@saturn.retrosnub.co.uk> <20150708145315.29030a75@gandalf.local.home> <559D8336.3040802@roeck-us.net> <1436414798.23558.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> <559EBD4C.6030502@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eHOIV5BfioPmIRHC" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559EBD4C.6030502@gmail.com> Cc: James Bottomley , Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --eHOIV5BfioPmIRHC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:28:28AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 7/8/2015 9:06 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:08 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On 07/08/2015 11:53 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >>> I personally don't trust a Reviewed-by tag much, as I sometimes see > >>> them appear without any comments. >=20 > I don't expect my Reviewed-by tag with no extra comments to carry much we= ight > if I send it to a maintainer who does not know me. > But if I have a history of good reviews to a specific maintainer, then why > should I have to add a message that says: Yes, I really, really did review > the patch. I truly mean that the patch "has been reviewed and found acce= ptable > according to the Reviewer's Statement" as listed in SubmittingPatches. > And I read Steve's qualification of "don't trust ... _much_" as being > consistent with what I am saying, so I'm fine with that. The point I > want to make is that a Reviewed-by tag without comments should not > always be assumed to be without meaning or value. Indeed, and when I'm the one dealing with applying the patches it's actually helpful to not have extra text that needs reading and thinking about when applying things if I trust whoever did the review. Past history as a reviewer is much more important than any verbiage around the review and review that consists of a simple tag takes seconds to read. > >> Seriously, it does happen that I send Reviewed-by: or Acked-by: feedba= ck if > >> a patch is just fine as-is. What do you expect the reviewer to do in s= uch > >> a case ? > > There's almost always something you can say. > And there is a time to not nit-pick a patch to death. > If my comment will not result in a significantly better patch, then I am > wasting the patch submitter's time, and the time of everyone else on the > mail list that will have to read my comment, and potentially have to read > and review a new spin of the patch. Very much so. --eHOIV5BfioPmIRHC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVnsMbAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ/i8H/0PA+hwHgihU71tP3YLPYcUe YMO0rVnT8kG2wpo7Uz5Uq2JC2CrNoRSojNaLufRmCRIRkyPxc2CDfHxBxakfp/j9 37nJIkpGeokM2xQVN0SitKI4oXW0kifmj7Q89PYOh1f00LsCxV12yIE97VGBvYVS HPR8fu9anb2LWdZWmYBMT/bBOtvnk5J67663sy6qTARDIDWszeVwAqY5PpipsWLY 4UA9xlaRENzrWlJEKR0TUTtnbWay5usVLdTbK9lPU71zrjpRvnSaDrVW+Z9VQJ9q B/I1yjiLK4h7Zd9LbZdzt1l20cZn/QuNdYu1M3Vjt/v9uTPkQhs8m7lAQBqYlzs= =MrRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eHOIV5BfioPmIRHC--