From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A01D23ED45 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 14:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736777714; cv=none; b=nzdnY2jd4+uf6rJuUHSL5NTA4Lng9JMgahOotUzXp/24eWRe2iUO18UwRJpT2immqlMAe5+EaJMcL7VIo8lMBFXEu6vuH9vi726TENeMtuDaZDOpgnoFQ/rtvgB97/Fw4vvq6YXUlXx4BSSU7RjtX+XaJmN6woKVYKP1KWqKV8k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736777714; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gniWYhXWfG/kTIEpG2o605h1qixBRejJa9c4NLSlU58=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OU1swcHkbIIQIAPs06ocVh9fa2OriFeINYqS0PPK8usb85YdL8xkHMTQlBBL1JNEO8+LBhYgraDXNkIHs3Pzqff0LOlECiMd4axXoKDNQkTaPk9jTAwA5rgUZ+WETBkwB1WwGhXDbne8FAtE1lJEFg5dp1EC9+rVgF7hry9Kvn4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=hSOIfovK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="hSOIfovK" Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-173-48-82-229.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.82.229]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 50DEDxax009455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:14:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1736777643; bh=cstIT/Ge3hyyls2hAQtO81zaohHddliLPg+dh7uODCk=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hSOIfovKFPLX72TdZC02j1laOT/1OIZdi+DpTQM8UDL5DTU0pM92n0WB+nQRJ5I5Y y6kGFbVAMY6xM9LIIQ9OUeSKm+WQ+Jh5sJlUGCwGgyt0LC+GL42u3IAL+hrpFsvXaA AiExrhGB8awNEgIQ3MVzP5UQKrZqS+oFYp5Zs8H3CzfuXXsk/FVJvg5ohhT8OyHF5/ f+n3MCGpywCVmD5uEpoA9lhPK4LssNFhh//W5+bemeo418sV/A6JRTCDbu38CKrTrf Kl7JWNHd6IKC5youmtspCyAemnGQHyywA6R8tnYFXM3y+S9wR4UmVSBxMfJpM0SyTI p2eLQR8JgBlRg== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 6A20F15C0135; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:13:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:13:59 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Neal Gompa Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Miguel Ojeda , Jonathan Corbet , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, Sami Tolvanen , Masahiro Yamada , Luis Chamberlain , tech-board@groups.linuxfoundation.org, Steven Rostedt , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linus Torvalds , Shuah Khan , Dan Williams , "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by Message-ID: <20250113141359.GD1514771@mit.edu> References: <20250112152946.761150-1-ojeda@kernel.org> <20250112152946.761150-3-ojeda@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > I've had my Reviewed-by tags silently ignored or deliberately stripped > because even though I've done a technical review, the maintainer does > not believe that I did. Therefore, what I am saying is that > maintainers seem to speciously decide whether an Acked-by or > Reviewed-by tag is appropriate or not *after* someone has sent it. > > This is the fundamental problem I have right now. This decision is not > the maintainer's to make, it is the submitter's. Nope, it's is *absolutely* the maintainer's to make. If I don't trust the reviewer, or reviewer is known to be someone who is only giving English grammer or policy nit-picking, I am absolutely going to ignore the reviewer, and in some cases, tell the patch submitter that should feel to ignore the reviewer or feel that they should be obliged to pay attention to certain reviewers. Note also that a submitter is not obliged to resend a patch if someone sends an Acked-by or Reviewed-by. There are tools like b4 or patchwork that will blindly add all tags, and then it's up to the maintainer to remove any b.s. tags that maintainer doesn't feel up to the subsystem's standards. - Ted