Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 16:59:15 -0700
From: josh@joshtriplett.org
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, sbw@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag
Message-ID: <20140602235915.GB14801@cloud>
References: <20140602174837.GA13257@cloud>
 <1401731968.7323.4.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140602181658.GX22231@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1401734669.7323.20.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140602145020.400d4e0c@gandalf.local.home>
 <20140602185504.GA13569@cloud>
 <1401735917.7323.23.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140602190951.GA13648@cloud>
 <1401736666.7323.25.camel@joe-AO725>
 <20140602231949.GV14410@dastard>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140602231949.GV14410@dastard>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:19:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:09 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > > > this should go along with a change to
> > > > > get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
> > > > 
> > > > Something like this:
> > > 
> > > Yes, exactly.  Given an appropriate commit message,
> > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> > 
> > That's the sort of patch where reviewing is
> > pretty useless.
> > 
> > What it needs is testing, not reviewing.
> > 
> > I tested it for all of 10 seconds.
> 
> From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> 
> "         (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
>              submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
>              worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
>              issues which would argue against its inclusion.
> .....
> 
> A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
> appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
> technical issues."
> 
> So, for someone to say they have reviewed the code and are able to
> say it is free of known issues and has no remaining technical
> issues, they would have had to apply, compile and test the patch,
> yes?
> 
> i.e. Reviewed-by implies both Acked-by, Tested-by and that the code
> is technically sound.

No, not at all.  It implies Acked-by, and that the code is technically
sound (both at the micro-level and in overall architecture/approach),
but does not imply Tested-by; that's a separate tag for a reason.

We should not, for instance, prevent someone from providing a
Reviewed-by (as opposed to an Acked-by) for a driver whose hardware few
people actually have.  There's significant value in code review even
without the ability to test.

> Anyone using Reviewed-by without having actually applied and tested
> the patch is mis-using the tag - they should be using Acked-by: if
> all they have done is read the code in their mail program....

Acked-by and Reviewed-by mean two different things (Reviewed-by being a
superset of Acked-by), and the difference is not "I've applied and
tested this"; that's Tested-by.

- Josh Triplett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/