netdev - Re: [RFC] docs: netdev: encourage reviewers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f821dab9-5706-4d91-a213-4e362b907583@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 21:36:36 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, sd@...asysnail.net,
	horms@...ge.net.au
Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: netdev: encourage reviewers

> So moved most of the paragraphs to the common docs, what I kept in
> netdev is this:
> 
> 
> Reviewer guidance
> -----------------
> 
> Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged,
> regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and
> helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`.
> 
> It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level
> of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about
> their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow.
> 
> Less experienced reviewers should avoid commenting exclusively on more
> trivial / subjective matters like code formatting and process aspects
> (e.g. missing subject tags).
> 
> 
> Sounds reasonable?

Yes, that is reasonable. And i agree that i get the feeling some
subsystems don't know their community members too well, enough to
establish a good idea of trust or not.

Thanks
	Andrew