Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1332498 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-12 03:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-15 19:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 5 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 03:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> - 2016-02-12 04:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@broadcom.com> - 2016-02-12 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2016-02-15 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> - 2016-02-15 19:20 +0100
| From | Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 03:20 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags |
| Message-ID | <r1buV-zY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
As is now common in a lot of organization having an internal code review process (be it through Gerritt or other tools), patches extracted from this review process and submitted to public mailing-lists will have pre-existing Reviewed-by tags. Add a note about why these tags exists, and what a maintainer could be doing with those. Some maintainers did complain before that these tags had to be added when the patches get submitted to the public, while some just ignored and took the patches as-is. Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index d603fa078235..b1b8e39bc5ee 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -582,6 +582,14 @@ reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. +The presence of Reviewed-by tags for an initial patch submission are indicative +of an existing internal review process that may occur at various organizations, +prior to a mainline kernel submission. The presence of these tags can give the +maintainer a good appreciation that somebody has done an internal review +following the same guidelines as those done on a public mailing-list. +Maintainers are encouraged to maintain these tags while accepting and merging +patches, appreciation of these pre-existing Revivewed-by tags is left are their +own discretion. A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this -- 2.1.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anup Patel <anup.patel@broadcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 04:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags |
| Message-ID | <r1chk-174-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1332498 |
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > As is now common in a lot of organization having an internal code review > process (be it through Gerritt or other tools), patches extracted from > this review process and submitted to public mailing-lists will have > pre-existing Reviewed-by tags. Add a note about why these tags exists, > and what a maintainer could be doing with those. Some maintainers did > complain before that these tags had to be added when the patches get > submitted to the public, while some just ignored and took the patches > as-is. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index d603fa078235..b1b8e39bc5ee 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -582,6 +582,14 @@ reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been > done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to > understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally > increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. > +The presence of Reviewed-by tags for an initial patch submission are indicative > +of an existing internal review process that may occur at various organizations, > +prior to a mainline kernel submission. The presence of these tags can give the > +maintainer a good appreciation that somebody has done an internal review > +following the same guidelines as those done on a public mailing-list. > +Maintainers are encouraged to maintain these tags while accepting and merging > +patches, appreciation of these pre-existing Revivewed-by tags is left are their > +own discretion. Typo fix "left are their own discretion" -> "left at their own discretion". > > A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person > named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this > -- > 2.1.0 > Regards, Anup
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@broadcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 19:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags |
| Message-ID | <r1qDE-2aX-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1332498 |
For some odd reason, the first version of this e-mail had an HTML part and got rejected from the lists. My apologies for the extra e-mail. On 11 February 2016 at 18:12, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > As is now common in a lot of organization having an internal code review > process (be it through Gerritt or other tools), patches extracted from > this review process and submitted to public mailing-lists will have > pre-existing Reviewed-by tags. Add a note about why these tags exists, > and what a maintainer could be doing with those. Some maintainers did > complain before that these tags had to be added when the patches get > submitted to the public, while some just ignored and took the patches > as-is. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index d603fa078235..b1b8e39bc5ee 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -582,6 +582,14 @@ reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been > done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to > understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally > increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. > +The presence of Reviewed-by tags for an initial patch submission are indicative > +of an existing internal review process that may occur at various organizations, > +prior to a mainline kernel submission. The presence of these tags can give the > +maintainer a good appreciation that somebody has done an internal review > +following the same guidelines as those done on a public mailing-list. > +Maintainers are encouraged to maintain these tags while accepting and merging > +patches, appreciation of these pre-existing Revivewed-by tags is left are their > +own discretion. Some nit-picking on the last sentence. How about: While maintainers are encouraged to maintain these tags when accepting and merging patches, appreciation of these pre-existing Reviewed-by tags is left at their own discretion. There's also a typo in "Reviewed-by" in the original sentence. > A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person > named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this > -- > 2.1.0 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 18:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags |
| Message-ID | <r2vrB-4dy-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1332498 |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:12:58 -0800 Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > As is now common in a lot of organization having an internal code review > process (be it through Gerritt or other tools), patches extracted from > this review process and submitted to public mailing-lists will have > pre-existing Reviewed-by tags. Add a note about why these tags exists, > and what a maintainer could be doing with those. Some maintainers did > complain before that these tags had to be added when the patches get > submitted to the public, while some just ignored and took the patches > as-is. So I'll confess, I'm not quite sold on this one. This is a document for people looking to learn about how to submit patches; it is already far too long, complex, and bureaucratic. I'm not at all convinced that adding suggestions for maintainers is appropriate here. Is there a real problem that this patch is trying to solve? Thanks, jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 19:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] Documentation: SubmittingPatches: Add note about Reviewed-by tags |
| Message-ID | <r2vUD-4Jg-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1334668 |
Hi Jon, Comments below On 16-02-15 09:43 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:12:58 -0800 > Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As is now common in a lot of organization having an internal code review >> process (be it through Gerritt or other tools), patches extracted from >> this review process and submitted to public mailing-lists will have >> pre-existing Reviewed-by tags. Add a note about why these tags exists, >> and what a maintainer could be doing with those. Some maintainers did >> complain before that these tags had to be added when the patches get >> submitted to the public, while some just ignored and took the patches >> as-is. > > So I'll confess, I'm not quite sold on this one. This is a document for > people looking to learn about how to submit patches; it is already far > too long, complex, and bureaucratic. I agree - the patch submission process is too complicated with the email review and approval process in place. If it could be streamlined in any way I'm all for it. But the documentation associated with this process is not detailed enough and needs updating whenever possible. It is too vague and leaves things open for interpretation. This causes different Maintainers to have different opinions on the patch submission format right now. When clarification is needed it should be added in the documentation. > I'm not at all convinced that > adding suggestions for maintainers is appropriate here. > > Is there a real problem that this patch is trying to solve? Yes - the patch submission documentation does not detail what to do with <Reviewed-by> fields from internal code reviews of patches. > > Thanks, > > jon > Regards, Scott
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web