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 9FF2685D for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:29:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [95.142.166.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F05711FD47 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 23:29:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: Dmitry Torokhov Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 01:29:29 +0200 Message-ID: <2513219.zeNxM5s3Dn@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20140528231845.GA8518@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1734054.557RqAjsBf@avalon> <20140528231845.GA8518@core.coreip.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 Wednesday 28 May 2014 16:18:45 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:02:59AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wednesday 28 May 2014 13:22:42 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 01:12:28 PM josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 06:48:47PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > > Also long-overdue is a clarification on exactly what "Acked-by" > > > > > means. Right now it is being used for at least two distinct and > > > > > mutually-incompatible purposes: > > > > > > > > > > 1. A maintainer A for code affected by a patch, who is distinct from > > > > > a maintainer B queuing a patch, has reviewed the patch and has > > > > > cleared it as being OK for maintainer B to send upstream > > > > > > > > > > 2. A casual review has been done by someone who is not a maintainer > > > > > for the code in question > > > > > > > > > > What I would propose is to have the first use replaced by a new tag, > > > > > "Maintainer-acked-by:", and the second use abolished, along with > > > > > "Acked-by:", and replaced by "Reviewed-by:". > > > > > > > > In practice, (2) seems to have been mostly replaced by "Reviewed-by"; > > > > I rarely see Acked-by used for cases other than (1): "I'm the > > > > maintainer or an affected subsystem developer, I approve of this > > > > patch, but I don't intend to take it through my own tree." > > > > > > I believe we still need a separate mark for casual review. I can scan > > > a patch and find a few item that i might now like, but if I do not > > > do full review in the first pass and then again after the issues > > > that have been pointed out have been corrected I won't be stamping > > > "Reviewed-by" on the patch. > > > > > > Nitpicked-by? :) > > > > Do such casual reviews need to be recorded in the git history ? I tend to > > just reply with "looks good to me" when I just skim through a patch, and > > I don't think that deserves being recorded for posterity. > > I personally do not care if it gets recorded or not as long as issue is > resolved but we are talking about giving more credit to reviewers to > make process more appealing... We most certainly do, but if we want that credit to be an incentive, it has to have value. A casual review tag could even be seen as having a negative value. My opinion is most probably strongly biased on that subject though. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart