On 19 July 2015 20:54:33 BST, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@xxxxxx> wrote: >Jonathan Cameron schrieb am 19.07.2015 um 17:19: >> Hi All, >> ><...> >> Our standard tags; >> >> Signed-off-by: >> This is part of the developer certificate of origin >> stuff. If you sign-off you are making an explicit statement >> that either you wrote the code or it passed through your >> hands and to the best of your knowledge you are not breaking >> license terms etc (this includes me for example certifying >> that I have made no changes that would invalidate earlier >> sign offs) This is the one with some legal meaning >> and I think we are all using it correctly (just here for >> completeness). >> >> Note that this also either implies that you have 'reviewed' >> the code in detail, or that you are happy that the deep >> review has already been done by someone you trust. > >Hi, >call me paranoid, but I would feel better if you would still >review in all cases. To load off some weight from your >shoulders I would recommend to change the workflow a bit in the >sense that you hold back on reviews until a patch has either >received an acked/reviewed-by tag or an appropriate amount of >time has passed (maybe a week). Then you should still do a very >suspicious review before taking in that change. I do still look at everything but will gloss over things like register maps if I know someone else has waded through them. Also don't necessarily check things like whether all instances possible of a cleanup have been applied. I also like others like to do an early review from time to time. They can be very rewarding! My focus in early reviews is all structure and ABI (more or less).. Stuff that can save a lot of wasted time if we get it right early. >Thus, you could focus more on the details and would not have to >deal with early respins. I do that a fair bit already if low on time :) > >> (and it's this last bit that lets the Linux development >> process scale). There is a pretty universal view that >> you don't bother with both signed-off-by and any other tag >> (though tested-by can be appropriate in my view). >> ><...> > >I'm fine with the Acked-by and Tested-by stuff. > >> Reviewed-by: >> Now this is the one that caused most discussion in the >> previously mentioned thread. When is it appropriate? >> >> 1) When substantial work has been applied as part of a review. >> This might be indicated by a series of suggested changes >> or by detailed comments on what they think is good / bad >> might be done differently. In these cases the reviewer >> may 'suggest' the tag themselves. >> >> 2) Where earlier versions of a patch have received substantial >> review but the reviewer has not commented on the latest >> version. In this case some maintainers have been giving >> 'Reviewed-by' tags to people who haven't supplied them >> on their own. This is the change I would like to make to >> how I have done things previously (where when I had time >> I pestered people to give a reviewed-by). >> >> A few of you delight in early stage reviews and I feel often >> get little or no permanent credit for your hard work. >> In particular there are some here who spend a lot of time >> helping new submitters get large patches in order. A job >> that can take a huge amount of work on occasion! >> >> So does anyone object if I sometimes add Reviewed-by tags >> for them? Obviously this is all going to be a little >> arbitrary so do keep sending them directly (and authors >> keep adding them to later versions of your patches!) >> > >I'm in favor of using the Reviewed-by tag rather restrictive. >IMHO it expresses that the reviewer was able to understand the >change in its full extend. This may include to check all >device specific parameters used against a data sheet (if the >data sheet is not available due to NDA, then I would not want >to give this tag), check each line of code, check fixes against >the source code block it applies to (or even parent level >blocks if required). As a result, it should indicate that the >patch has successfully passed certain quality checks of the >reviewer. This in turn gives appreciaction to the patch author. >The reviewers reputation however can suffer, if significant >bugs slipped through the review. That's why I don't feel too >comfortable if anyone else gives reviewed-by tags in my name. >Clearly, there is a gap in between the acked-by and reviewed-by >tags, something that would express your contribution in the >development process. Interesting to hear. I will refrain from adding such tags given both your response and Dan's. Dan suggested in the mega thread an explicit acknowledgement of a bug sported in a review. This would be applies as a kind of 'thanks' from the author to later versions without carrying any weight wrt to the rest of the patch being good. I was kind of fishing for opinions with this email. Good to get some! > >> Anyhow, the thread that lead to this has yet again reminded >> me of how lucky I am and we all are in IIO wrt to the quality >> and quantity of reviewers who put huge amounts of time into >> improving all our code! >> >> I certainly know I would have burnt out long ago if it was >> just me against the mountain. >> >> I'm going to be on holiday week after next. Should get back >> to normal in early August. > >Enjoy! Thanks > >Hartmut > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jonathan >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" >in >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
