Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752409AbaFEVOk (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 17:14:40 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:65499 "EHLO mail-pd0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752005AbaFEVOj (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jun 2014 17:14:39 -0400 Message-ID: <5390DDA6.2010700@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:14:14 -0700 From: Frank Rowand Reply-To: frowand.list@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Chinner CC: Steven Rostedt , josh@joshtriplett.org, Joe Perches , 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 References: <20140602185504.GA13569@cloud> <1401735917.7323.23.camel@joe-AO725> <20140602190951.GA13648@cloud> <1401736666.7323.25.camel@joe-AO725> <20140602231949.GV14410@dastard> <20140602235915.GB14801@cloud> <20140603011125.GW14410@dastard> <20140602213045.26219ddb@gandalf.local.home> <20140603071654.GC14410@dastard> <20140603134347.6e39f946@gandalf.local.home> <20140605040107.GA4453@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20140605040107.GA4453@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/4/2014 9:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000 >> Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> >>> If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15 >>> minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it takes you to read the >>> patchset? >> >> Yeah, what about that? > > That testing a patch for obvious, common regressions takes no longer > than it does to read and review the logic. > >>> IMO, every reviewer has their own developement environment and they >>> should be at least testing that the change they are reviewing >>> doesn't cause problems in that environment, just like they do for >>> their own code before they post it for review. >> >> Let me ask you this. In the scientific community, when someone posts a >> research project and asks their peers to review their work. Are all >> those reviewers required to test out that paper? >> Or are they to review it, check the math, look for cases that are >> missed, see common errors, and other checks? I'm sure some >> reviewers may do various tests, but others will just check the >> logic. I'm having a very hard time seeing where Reviewed-by means >> tested-by. I see those as two completely different tags. > > We are not conducting a scientific research experiment here. We are > conduting a very large software *engineering* project here. Yes, software engineering. Where software review is a manual process of *reading* and understanding code, in all of the processes I have been involved in at big corporations that love big process. (Not to claim I know of all the processes everyone else uses...) Why can't you just let reviewed-by and tested-by mean different things instead of one being a super-set of the other? If you force reviewed-by to also mean tested-by then you just shrank your available pool of reviewers. > > So perhaps we should be using robust software engineering processes > rather than academic peer review as the model for our code review > process? < snip > Cheers, Frank -- 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/