Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753919AbXJHXGT (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:06:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751725AbXJHXGJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:06:09 -0400 Received: from barikada.upol.cz ([158.194.242.200]:52312 "EHLO barikada.upol.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751851AbXJHXGI (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:06:08 -0400 To: Theodore Tso , Jonathan Corbet Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Jan Engelhardt , Sam Ravnborg , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight In-Reply-To: <20071008213852.GA31713@thunk.org> References: <25555.1191864285@lwn.net> <20071008173706.GA12026@uranus.ravnborg.org> <470A9422.4050400@zytor.com> <20071008213852.GA31713@thunk.org> User-Agent: slrn + jed (x86_64-pc-linux-glibc-debian) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 01:20:17 +0200 Message-Id: From: Oleg Verych Organization: Palacky University in Olomouc, experimental physics department X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-glibc-debian Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2026 Lines: 49 * Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:38:52 -0400 > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:33:38PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Uhm, no. There is no reason an "unimportant" person couldn't review a >> patch, and therefore perform a potentially highly valuable service to >> the maintainer. >> >> None of these are indicative of the authority of the person acking, >> reviewing, testing, or nacking. That's only as good as the trust in the >> person signing. > > I would tend to agree. Right now I think the problem is that we are > getting too little reviews, not enough. And someone who reviews > patches, even if unknown, could be building up expertise that > eventually would make them a valued developer, even while they are > doing us a service. Experience of convincing experienced patch author, that some things in the patch are wrong :) [] > We could ask reviewers to include a URL to an LKML archive of their > review, to make it easier to find a review of a patch so later on > people can judge how effective they their review was. I vote for more little summaries in the `Subject'(again). Long, boring threads with whole threading part of screen being empty due to same subjects isn't fun, when some of thousands of messages can have interesting stuff inside. And it's easy not only for mailing list readers now, and for archive readers also; readers of the www search results (who ever that may be): google.com/search?q=reviewed+crashkernel First hit on the review of the patch, i happened to make. And i just thought "hell, just string parsing, what can be more simply?", yet there was productive discussion and bug fixing. After i saw convincing statements about testing, i've placed review mark. Though i'm really "unimportant" random hacker. -- -o--=O`C #oo'L O <___=E M - 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/