Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760693AbXFRAH7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:07:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754165AbXFRAHw (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:07:52 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:40768 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753580AbXFRAHv (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:07:51 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-disposition:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PetjM3u+HQzvEcedXQKJ56d2Ezc1lI9WHzbWQsxflqekGhDN3sPDAF33nfZuOuxj5xNviDpwa3B8F4wC098Y4IDBE/D7lLuSR5mgfbXEB4ItlKRpoVGctVWjU2ZVTPhnkjxX/LpVUNx7BqBXPD6X1AmljAlgWbRYFnj5hLMAsyo= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Stefan Richter Subject: Re: How to improve the quality of the kernel? Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:22:55 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Andrew Morton , Adrian Bunk , Michal Piotrowski , Oleg Verych , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Diego Calleja , Chuck Ebbert , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200706172349.08813.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4675C083.6080409@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4675C083.6080409@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706180222.55282.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2120 Lines: 44 On Monday 18 June 2007, Stefan Richter wrote: > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > despite the fact that audit takes > > more time/knowledge then making the patch you will end up with zero credit > > if patch turns out to be (luckily) correct. Even if you find out issues > > and report them you are still on mercy of author for being credited > > If we introduce a "Reviewed-by" with reasonably clear semantics > (different from Signed-off-by; e.g. the reviewer is not a middle-man in > patch forwarding; the reviewer might have had remaining reservations... > very similar to but not entirely the same as "Acked-by" as currently > defined in -mm) --- and also make the already somewhat established > "Tested-by" more official, --- then the maintainers could start to make > it a habit to add Reviewed-by and Tested-by. > > Plus, reviewers and testers could formally reply with Reviewed-by and > Tested-by lines to patch postings and even could explicitly ask the > maintainer to add these lines. Sounds great. > > so from personal POV you are much better to wait and fix issues after they > > hit mainline kernel. You have to choose between being a good citizen and > > preventing kernel regressions or being bastard and getting the credit. ;) > > > > If you happen to be maintainer of the affected code the choice is similar > > with more pros for letting the patch in especially if you can't afford the > > time to do audit (and by being maintainer you are guaranteed to be heavily > > time constrained). > > I don't think that a maintainer (who signs off on patches after all) can > easily afford to take the "bastard approach". I may be naive. Well, I'm not doing it myself but I find it tempting... ;) In case of being maintainer "bastard approach" is more about not discouraging developers by holding patches for too long than about getting credit. Bart - 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/