Neil Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find it is always good to know *why* we have the tags. That
> information is a useful complement to what they mean, and can guide
> people in adding them.
Hmm...I was just going to go with the "because I told you so" approach
that I use with my kids. It works so well with them after all.
<pauses to go scream at his kids who have never understood why playing
"Dance Dance Revolution" directly above the office is hard on
productivity>
I agree with just about everything you've said, and am tweaking things
accordingly. But...
> > + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been
> > + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with how the
> > + submitter has responded to my comments.
>
> This seems more detailed that necessary. The process (communicated
> back / responded) is not really relevant.
Instead, it seems to me that the process is crucially important.
Reviewed-by shouldn't be a rubber stamp that somebody applies to a
patch; I think it should really imply that issues of interest have been
communicated to the developers. If we are setting expectations for what
Reviewed-by means, I would prefer to leave an explicit mention of
communication in there. If I'm in the minority here, though, it can
certainly come out.
Thanks,
jon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
