[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161028140205.GL29769@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:02:05 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by
under --strict
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Some subsystem polices have a strict requirement that every patch must
> > have at least one reviewer before being approved for upstream. Since
> > encouraging review is good policy (great review is even better policy!)
> > enforce checking for a Reviewed-by when checkpath is run with --strict
> > (or with --review).
>
> Hmm, do you imply the maintainer would have to add his Reviewed-by in
> addition to Signed-off-by? I find that a bit too much (especially if you
> intend to enforce this over at our corner of the kernel ;)
I do believe we should be keeping the (our, my?) notion of review out of
the signed-off-by tag (which imo is a legal statement about the
provenance of a patch), and so yes we shouldn't be pushing patches that
haven't gone through the rite of fire and been seconded by someone else.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Powered by blists - more mailing lists