On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > Yes, I agree, there are lots of examples of this, but the overall > majority are reviewed by 2 people at least (or sure as hell should be, > maybe we need to bring into existance the "reviewed-by" marking to > ensure this.) Well, I don't really "review" any patches that come through Andrew. What I do is: - global search-and-replace Andrew's "acked-by:" with one that is both him and me (that way I make sure that I _only_ sign off on patches that he has signed off on!) - look through all the commit *messages* (but not patches). This sometimes involves also editing up grammar etc - some of those messages just make me wince - but it also tends to include things like adding commit one-liner information if only a git commit ID is mentioned etc. - and only for areas that I feel competent in, I look at the patches too. So, to take an example, when Andrew passes on uml patches that only touch arch/um and include/asm-um, my sign-off does not mean *any* kind of review at all. It's purely a sign that it's passed the sign-off requirements properly. When it comes to VM issues or other things, things are different, and I actually review the patch (and occasionally send it back with "nope, I'm not applying this"). But for stuff that comes through Andrew, that's probably less than a quarter of the patches. And I don't mark the ones I've reviewed specially in any way. And I suspect I'm not at all alone in this. People simply have maintainers they trust (and _need_ to trust in order to not become a bottleneck). Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
