Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 12:49 pm

Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:


Hmm...I was just going to go with the "because I told you so" approach
that I use with my kids.  It works so well with them after all.  

<pauses to go scream at his kids who have never understood why playing
"Dance Dance Revolution" directly above the office is hard on
productivity> 

I agree with just about everything you've said, and am tweaking things
accordingly.  But...


Instead, it seems to me that the process is crucially important.
Reviewed-by shouldn't be a rubber stamp that somebody applies to a
patch; I think it should really imply that issues of interest have been
communicated to the developers.  If we are setting expectations for what
Reviewed-by means, I would prefer to leave an explicit mention of
communication in there.  If I'm in the minority here, though, it can
certainly come out.

Thanks,

jon

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight , Neil Brown, (Mon Oct 8, 8:05 pm)
Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight, Sam Ravnborg, (Tue Oct 9, 1:44 pm)
Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight , Jonathan Corbet, (Tue Oct 9, 12:49 pm)
Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight, David Chinner, (Tue Oct 9, 8:06 pm)
Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight, Roland Dreier, (Tue Oct 9, 1:25 pm)