Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

quoted text
>> I think Reviewed-by: would indeed be a very good addition to our
>> patch flow convention, borrowing from the kernel folks.
>
> You mean you have more people to blame, then? ;-)

No.  The procedure would help me keep my impatience from making
me merge patches that have not been adequately reviewed on the
list.

Recently, I ended up wasting two nights because I was not
careful enough earlier, when I was short of time and apparent
backlog was beginning to get larger and larger.

I queued some patches from the backlog to 'next' saying "ah,
they look good enough, people will notice breakages anyway," but
the breakage was not caught until 'master' got broken.

Not good.  And the list is not to blame.

By merging to 'next' I am sending a message that I think they
have been adequately reviewed (either by me or by people whose
judgement I trust), so I shouldn't have applied them to 'next'
in the first place.  I instead should have ignored them, and
waited until I had enough time and concentration to properly
review them.  Or until somebody else did --- by that time,
hopefully other people might have commented on them, saying
"these look all ok to me", or "ah that's crap".

These wasted two nights was all my fault, and as a result, there
are more patches on the list archive that I have seen (notice I
did not say "have read") that are unapplied.

As to those "more patches on the list that are unapplied", I'll
keep them unapplied for now, until there are positive feedbacks
on them.

The positive feedback may come from myself.  I am not saying I
will stop reviewing and/or applying patches nobody else
commented on.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html