[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071008173706.GA12026@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:37:07 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:24:45AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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:
snip...
Or maybe we need something much less formal that explain the purpose of the
four tags we use:
Signed-of-by:
Acked-by:
Reviewed-by:
Cc:
Tested-by:
OK - make it five then. I continously to see people mixing up especially
Acked-by: and Signed-of-by: both here at lkml but especially at the
arm-kernel list (the only other Linux dev list I follow atm). I do
beleive we see similar pattern in the other linux-dev lists where
people are confused by these tags and need a short two line summery for
each of them.
Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists