On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 9:42 PM Neal Gompa <neal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:34 AM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 4:41 PM Miguel Ojeda > > <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 2:29 PM Neal Gompa <neal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > As my Acked-by was removed, I'm sorry to say that there is no point > > > > for me to provide feedback since it is unwanted. > > > > > > > > I hope it lands soon, but I also hope the people here who decided that > > > > a person's efforts aren't worth recording because they don't > > > > personally know them should reflect on this too. It's a good way to > > > > keep people from coming into the community for the long term. > > > > > > Hopefully this reply helps -- apologies to anyone if I am overstepping. > > > > > > On one side, it is true that Acked-by is typically used by people that > > > is responsible for the code one way or another, because the tag is > > > meant for them to acknowledge they are OK with the change going in, > > > and so I can see the argument that restricting it for that purpose > > > only may help avoid confusion later on reading the log. > > > > > > On the other hand, someone being willing to put their name on a patch > > > is very valuable, whoever they are, and whatever the tag name is. > > > Moreover, it is also true that, Acked-by may be used here in a "as a > > > key user downstream, this looks reasonable and satisfies our needs" > > > sense. > > > > > > Finally, sometimes new tags are invented on the fly because there is > > > no good fit, too. > > > > > > Either way, I don't think anyone wanted to disregard your efforts or > > > to be rude to you in particular, but rather wanted to keep tags usage > > > aligned to how they view them or how they use them in their subsystem. > > > The Tested-by was still wanted, so I doubt their goal was to remove > > > you from the log or to make you feel unwelcomed. > > > > Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could, Miguel. Neal, > > I do appreciate your feedback, and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear > > enough in my previous emails. I would very much welcome your > > Tested-by, or another suitable tag that's acceptable to both you and > > Masahiro. > > > > Honestly, I don't think it's worth it if my tag is going to be > stripped simply because someone thinks I'm "unqualified". If you want > more people participating in these things, doing stuff like that is > definitely not the way to do it. It's not like people haven't had a > chance to know me or even just look me up to know I'm not just blowing > smoke. I definitely feel like I'm being disregarded. :( > > The sole reason I didn't give a Reviewed-by or Tested-by is that I > didn't want to do any integration work to validate it beyond the > basics, which would have meant dipping into the Red Hat kernel symbol > tracking infrastructure. I don't have time for that right now. If > someone else does, they can be my guest. I just don't feel comfortable > giving either without *actually* going that far. If you provided a Reviewed-by and/or Tested-by tag, they would not be stripped. I would not say you are unqualified in terms of skills or abilities. However, this is not how the Acked-by tag is typically used. As Miguel mentioned, "Acked-by-User" or "Acked-by: # As primary user" could be an option, but I am not sure if they would gain sufficient consensus. Code reviews and tests are always appreciated. The Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags are open to everyone. If you are uncomfortable with a Reviewed-by or Tested-by tag, I cannot think of any other alternatives. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
