Hi Jon,
Comments below
On 16-02-15 09:43 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:12:58 -0800
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As is now common in a lot of organization having an internal code review
process (be it through Gerritt or other tools), patches extracted from
this review process and submitted to public mailing-lists will have
pre-existing Reviewed-by tags. Add a note about why these tags exists,
and what a maintainer could be doing with those. Some maintainers did
complain before that these tags had to be added when the patches get
submitted to the public, while some just ignored and took the patches
as-is.
So I'll confess, I'm not quite sold on this one. This is a document for
people looking to learn about how to submit patches; it is already far
too long, complex, and bureaucratic.
I agree - the patch submission process is too complicated with the email
review and approval process in place. If it could be streamlined in any
way I'm all for it. But the documentation associated with this process
is not detailed enough and needs updating whenever possible. It is too
vague and leaves things open for interpretation. This causes different
Maintainers to have different opinions on the patch submission format
right now. When clarification is needed it should be added in the
documentation.
I'm not at all convinced that
adding suggestions for maintainers is appropriate here.
Is there a real problem that this patch is trying to solve?
Yes - the patch submission documentation does not detail what to do with
<Reviewed-by> fields from internal code reviews of patches.
Thanks,
jon
Regards,
Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
