On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:52:15AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 15:58 +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > We did that internally. You really don't want me telling engineers to > > > post to the list *first* without running things by me to get the basics > > > right. Not to start with, at least. > > > > Hi David, > > > > I am obviously in favour of internal review and I do not question it was > > carried out internally, I just kindly ask developers to drop review tags > > given internally when going to public mailing lists - I understand it is > > churn for you but I prefer them to be given explicitly. > > Sure, I've provided mine in public now. > > I will attempt to remember your preference, although I'm not sure I > think it's necessary. > > What's the failure mode we're protecting against here? That my > engineers are lying and have *faked* my reviewed-by tag? > > Don't you think I'd *eat* them if I ever found that happening? As I wrote above, I did not question the internal review process at all, we do internal review at ARM too in preparation for posting publicly but I think the patches review should take place on public mailing lists and tags should be given accordingly, that's it. You may see it as churn, fair enough, it is not a big deal either. > What's next? That you only accept such tags in signed email, so that > the dishonest engineer in question can't *fake* an email from me to the > list? They know I'm afflicted by Exchange so they can always send that > fake message with a message-id matching another message they know is > already in my inbox, so Exchange will helpfully discard theirs. :) There is nothing next :) - I just would like to see patches discussions and reviews taking place on linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for PCI patches, I do not think I am asking too much. Thanks, Lorenzo
