On Fri, 22 Dec 2017, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2017.12.21 19:07:07 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 02:43:06AM +0000, Zhenyu Wang wrote: >> dim apply-pull drm-intel-next-queued >> >> https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux.git tags/gvt-next-2017-12-22 >> From https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux >> * tag gvt-next-2017-12-22 -> FETCH_HEAD >> dim: ERROR: 6660c07ab5d3a1388b07af55b2503dd7b2cc61f7 is lacking mandatory review, aborting >> > > Looks dim doesn't allow committer == author without ack or r-b? Is > this really mandatory required? Yes. We want a minimum of two people looking at each patch. It's pretty much irrelevant if the committer/maintainer is the author or not. 2*sob or sob+rb or sob+ack, or more for more complicated things. It's unfortunately common that the "obviously correct and trivial" patch quickly committed by the author without anyone else looking at it is actually buggy... > If yes, I will apply this rule for gvt tree as well and encourage gvt > developer to send a-b/r-b mail as looks people more like to use IM to > exchange review comment.. We don't have a strict rule to always send acks or rb by mail. IRC or IM is fine too for simple things. But we want to record the acks and rb in the commit regardless. When I push patches that got IRC review, I add the tags, and typically reply with something along the lines of, "Pushed with J. Random Hacker's IRC review". That said, I do encourage explicit ack/rb messages on the lists for non-trivial things in the interest of open development and transparency. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
