On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 at 17:38, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:43:06 +0200 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From time to time, the novice kernel contributors do not add Reviewed-by > > or Tested-by tags to the next versions of the patches. Mostly because > > they are unaware that responsibility of adding these tags in next > > version is on submitter, not maintainer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 7 +++++++ > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > index 58586ffe2808..9752b6311674 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > @@ -527,6 +527,13 @@ done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to > > understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally > > increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. > > > > +Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester > > +or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending > > +next versions. However if the patch is changed in following version, these > > +tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed. Usually > > +removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned > > +in the patch changelog (after '---' separator). > > after *the* "---" separator > > This is a bit ambiguous, though, since the point of sending a new version > of a patch is usually that it has changed. I'm not quite sure how to best > articulate when a patch has changed enough that reviews and such are no > longer applicable... If nothing else, "if the patch *has changed > substantially*" or something like that? Yes, it is ambiguous because different people see the amount of changes invalidating tags differently. I do not think we could make the paragraph above stricter and formalize such rule. I'll rework it to match your choice of wording. Best regards, Krzysztof
