Last month, at the kernel summit, there was discussion of putting a
Reviewed-by: tag onto patches to document the oversight they had
received on their way into the mainline. That tag has made an
occasional appearance since then, but there has not yet been a
discussion of what it really means. So it has not yet brought a whole
lot of value to the process.
As I was trying to sleep last night, it occurred to me that what we
might need is an equivalent of the DCO for the Reviewed-by tag. To that
end, I dedicated a few minutes of my life to the following bit of text.
It's really just meant to be a starting point for the discussion. Is
the following something close to what we understand Reviewed-by to mean?
jon
Reviewer's statement of oversight v0.01
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 how the
submitter has responded to my comments.
(c) While there may (or may not) be things which could be improved with
this submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
worthwhile addition to the kernel, and (2) free of serious known
issues which would argue against its inclusion.
(d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I can not
(unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees
that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any
given situation.
(e) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are
public and that a record of the contribution (including my Reviewed-by
tag and any associated public communications) is maintained
indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or
the open source license(s) involved.
-
| Thomas Gleixner | Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series.. |
| Karl Meyer | PROBLEM: 2.6.23-rc "NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out" |
| Mark Weber | hdparm standby timeout not working for WD raptors? |
| Robin Lee Powell | NFS hang + umount -f: better behaviour requested. |
git: | |
| Adam Roben | Equivalent of `svn switch` for git-svn? |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: On Tabs and Spaces |
| Adam Mercer | git cvsimport error |
| Sam Song | Fwd: [OT] Re: Git via a proxy server? |
| Antti Harri | Re: wine question |
| Paul Pruett | anyone using zoneminder.com on OpenBSD? |
| Josh | Re: removing sendmail |
| Sevan / Venture37 | wpi(4) not working in -CURRENT |
| Bill Day | telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Network is unreachable |
| Dong Liu | Re: CXterm for LINUX |
| Framstag | ftp-error: bind: Address already in use? |
| Theodore Ts'o | RESULT: comp.os.linux passes: 858: 5 |
| SMDK2410 LCD Framebuffer driver | 5 hours ago | Linux kernel |
| Resetting the bios password for Toshiba Laptop | 5 hours ago | Hardware |
| Problem booting a barebone kernel in VMWare | 8 hours ago | Linux kernel |
| IP layer send packet | 13 hours ago | Linux kernel |
| PID to ELF image full path | 15 hours ago | Linux kernel |
| types of kernel | 1 day ago | Linux kernel |
| magical mounts | 2 days ago | Linux kernel |
| Problem in scim in Fedora 9 | 2 days ago | Linux general |
| The new Western Digital power saving drives | 2 days ago | Hardware |
| Battery Maximizer Software | 3 days ago | Linux kernel |
