Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/6] target-arm queue

[Anthony Liguori]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> Peter, since I had picked up the first two patches into my still pending
>>>>> qom-next pull, as per the QEMU Summit discussion those patches should've
>>>>> gotten an Acked-by.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm? I don't recall this part of the discussion. If you want the
>>>> patches to have an Acked-by from you you need to send mail
>>>> to the list with an Acked-by line.
>>>
>>> No, I added a Signed-off-by. It was clearly stated that a Reviewed-by
>>> needs to be explicitly sent as reply but that "looks okay" should in
>>> exactly such a case where sender=submaintainer should be recorded as
>>> Acked-by, and Sob is certainly stronger than Acked-by. Cf. minutes.
>>
>> Nope.  If you want there to be an Acked-by, say "Acked-by:".  Don't
>> make people infer your Acked-bys.
>
> Yes, that's in the minutes. And yes, that's what I got as answer there.
> Please reply to the minutes if you think otherwise.

I explicitly said that Acked-bys are useless too.

The minutes say that you said the kernel treats "Acked-bys" as "looks
good".  You did say that.  At no point did a "rule" get made though.

> I brought up exactly this situation where I am contributor to CPU and
> submaintainer of CPU and often not getting Reviewed-bys but if at all,
> such as from Paolo recently, some verbal "looks OK" for a series. I was
> told that that should be turned into an Acked-by on the patches to
> satisfy your criteria that contributors may not just send patches as
> pull without Reviewed-by.

I think you misunderstood.

I don't care about Acked-bys.  They are useless.

A third of patches are being committed with Reviewed-bys.  There are
certainly many cases where patches are going in from submaintainers
that have been reviewed which comes implicitly with Signed-off-by.

But I worry that we're not reviewing enough on list and that there are
patches from maintainers going in through maintainer trees that aren't
getting outside review.

There's no immediate action for this other than we should all try to
review more patches on list to prevent the above situation.

>> And adding tags is a nice-to-have.  There is no "rule" stating that
>> you must include everyone that appears on the mailing list.  But I
>> expect that maintainers try to
>
> Again, at QEMU Summit you pushed for making Reviewed-by a must-have and
> we discussed whether a submaintainer must add a Reviewed-by then and
> what to do if author==submaintainer. If you dropped that thought, then
> fine with me.

Yes, patches should get reviewed.  I hope this is obvious to all of us :-)

I also suggested that I have tooling that people can use to simplify
adding collected Reviewed-bys on the list.

But none of this has anything to do with inferred Acked-bys.  I'll go
a step further and say that I would be very unhappy if anyone every
added any kind of tag to a patch with my name on it that I didn't send
myself.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg