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

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Mon 19-08-19 09:06:26, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
> > On Sat 17-08-19 21:35:29, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd suggest changing the text to read:
> > > >
> > > >  	 - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by the maintainer or
> > > > 	   reviewer of the the relevant code that the patch is
> > > > 	   appropriate for inclusion into the kernel.
> > >
> > > This would be a positive step forward.  I would be in favor of this.
> > >
> > > It would also be good to state here, if it isn't stated already, that
> > > "reviewer" means "someone who is listed in an R: line in MAINTAINERS".
> >
> > I don't think that 'R:' entry in MAINTAINERS should be really asked for.
> > IMO that is unnecessary bureaucracy and discourages review from people
> > that are not core developers. Sure the quality of the review may be lower
> > than from core developer but still there's some value in it. So I'd really
> > leave it at the discretion of the maintainer whether he accepts or just
> > ignores Reviewed-by tag.
> 
> Is there some other tag for "I'm interested in and reasonably
> knowledgeable about this change and it looks good to me"?
> 
> Note that there is a double "the" in the above text.

No. But is there a need for such tag? I, as a maintainer, would like to see
in the email where someone offers the Reviewed-by tag, how confident the
reviewer feels (otherwise I just make my educated guess). But I don't
really see a point in recording this in the changelog. After all the tag in
the changelog serves only two purposes I know about - to give credit to the
reviewer and to have another person to blame (CC on bug reports ;). So I
don't see any need in recording quality of review in the changelog for
long-term recording of the fact...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR