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 171E2910 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 22:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com [209.85.213.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1099C2027E for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 22:48:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id uq10so3074244igb.14 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:48:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140528163902.GA5099@sirena.org.uk> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140528143246.GV15585@mwanda> <20140528163902.GA5099@sirena.org.uk> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:48:31 +0200 Message-ID: From: Daniel Vetter To: Mark Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, 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. >> d978ef14456a38034f6c0e for a very nice example of that. But that's >> also a good example for no tag to acknowledge all the work that went >> into this review/patch, since I've done the final review myself and >> only put my sob onto the patch. > > 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. Thus far it didn't annoy me - it's at the bottom with the sob section. And occasionally I've found it useful to follow some of the steps laid out in there to understand why a patch looks what it looks like. I know that a lot of other maintainers want the patch revision log below the scissors. And it also gives me a really good tool to scold patch authors if they don't follow up on all review comments, which is the other useful aspect. Including it in the commit makes it look a bit more valued imo and hopefully makes sure people take this all serious. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch