Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:02:05 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch: Check for Reviewed-by
 under        --strict
Message-ID: <20161028140205.GL29769@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
References: <20161028124944.17930-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
 <87y418k38p.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y418k38p.fsf@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1010
Lines: 20

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:33:10PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-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