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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 15:47:33 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <>
To: Jakub Kicinski <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] docs: try to encourage (netdev?) reviewers

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 07:42:24PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> +Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others
> +to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges,
> +then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in
> +agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon.
> +The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight.

or no conclusing replies?

> +
> +There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``.
> +In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged
> +even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this
> +submission and it looks good to me."
> +Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise
> +maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all!
> +

So a bare Reviewed-by: tag is enough to be a reviewer, right?

> +Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused
> +on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while,
> +particularly for newbies!

... to encourage them contributing more.


An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists