On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:50:11 -0400 Trond Myklebust wrote:

quoted text
> 
> On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 14:16 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > +----
> > +
> > +Reviewer's statement of oversight
> > +
> > +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
> > +
> > + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its
> > +     appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. 
> > +
> > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> > +     communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied with the
> > +     submitter's response to my comments.
> > +
> > + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission,
> > +     I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to
> > +     the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its
> > +     inclusion.
> > +
> > + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not
> > +     (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
> > +     that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
> > +     given situation.
> 
> I'm confused about how to reconcile (c) and (d) here. If you are not
> sure about whether or not the patch will achieve its stated purpose, why
> would you be arguing that it is a worthwhile modification?

Well, any non-trivial patch could have a lurking bug in it, even if
most code paths are tested.


I thought that I once saw (read) something like this:

Someone who gives a Reviewed-by: tag also is willing to take
ownership (or at least help debug) any problems that arise from the
patch, including but not limited to patch-author hit-by-bus conditions.

Did I dream that?

---
~Randy
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/