| 1 |
Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:44:57 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 16/01/14 18:24, Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) wrote: |
| 4 |
>> So, how would this work with emails to this list, exactly? An email |
| 5 |
>> should be sent any time one of those fields is changed? |
| 6 |
> That's not necessary, in my opinion. We already send emails, "looks OK |
| 7 |
> to me" and similar. And most patches don't really need more than one |
| 8 |
> review and an ACK by the lead. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> Do you have a more detailed plan on how would this work? |
| 11 |
> Not really. We're small enough to do this organically and on a per-case |
| 12 |
> basis. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> But basically, if someone authors a non-trivial patch, that person |
| 15 |
> should *never* push themselves. Whoever reviews it should push it, |
| 16 |
> adding the Reviewed-by field. The reviewer should also get an ACK by the |
| 17 |
> team lead (via IRC or whatever) and add that to the commit before |
| 18 |
> pushing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
On the btrfs list, comments on patches often have wording to the effect: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
"After taking care of those issues, you can add my reviewed-by." |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
"Looks fine to me, reviewed-by" (or acked-by if more appropriate). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If it's a preliminary review/ack, meanwhile, those will be missing. |
| 27 |
Also, presumably (I don't do IRC) people can get acks (or reviews if |
| 28 |
there has been more detailed correspondence previously) on IRC. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Obviously reported-by doesn't need explicit permission, and tested-by |
| 31 |
(from a reporter's angle) the same, if it is said to work with the |
| 32 |
patch. Tested-by done by folks running the regression tests, etc, |
| 33 |
obviously get explicit permission in the form of their reports on those |
| 34 |
tests. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If there were issues and there's a v2, v3, etc, these include the various |
| 37 |
bylines as part of the revision. If the patch is considered ready to go |
| 38 |
as-is, they'll be added at the final commit, which can be made by the |
| 39 |
author if they have commit access, or a dev with access if not. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
And one final note: A signed-off-by is a useful indicator of a patch that |
| 42 |
an author considers ready to go, pending review, etc. Lack of that (from |
| 43 |
a seasoned submitter who is familiar with the process) can be an |
| 44 |
indication that the author believes the patch is or may be preliminary, |
| 45 |
and they're not yet ready for integration-tree inclusion or final review, |
| 46 |
tho they usually say as much in the patch description as well. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 50 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 51 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives