Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Separate from this example: yes, I think adopting Linux's Reviewed-by
> convention would be a good thing. When I see a positive reply to a
> patch, I often wonder whether an ack or a fuller reviewed-by is
> intended, and Linux's way of formalizing that appeals to me.
>
> I'll try sending a patch to add it to SubmittingPatches tomorrow
> morning (Stefan had also been hinting recently about this being
> something worth trying).
Thanks.
I agree with the goal of educating list participants not to throw
Reviewed-by: without reading the patches too carelessly. As akpm
once said in <20121003143200.69a50aad.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Looks ok to me from a quick look" is not a review.
> > No, lib/lzo has no identifiable maintainer. I suggest you proceed as
> > follows:
> >
> > - Post the entire patch series to lkml for review (I'd like a cc please)
>
> Already happened, multiple people reviewed and tested.
um, I would not consider "Looks ok to me from a quick look." and "I
couldn't tell from the github view, but I assume you follow standard
coding style." to indicate a rigorous code review!
That's the problem with the git presentation: hardly anyone reads the
patches and there is no patch for a reviewer to reply to.
So please send the patches out for review. One at a time, via email.
