Alyssa Rosenzweig <aly...@collabora.com> writes: >> Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique" >> management. >> >> Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel >> management it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only by >> Intel management. Spoiler: it is not. > > Sorry, I'll make that point more emphatic. > > Upstream must do what's best for upstream without zero regard for the > whims of management. Doubly so for bad management.
If the r-b process ever had any notice from any company's management, I haven't seen it. (Actually, I think most management would rather have the short sighted view of skipping code review to more quickly merge patches.) In terms of who to "track down", that is also a tenuous connection. The value of r-b is to give reviewers credit for the hard work that they do. (Which, I believe is what Matt and apinheiro are also saying.) Personally I try to make a rework log on patch commit messages to give reviewers more explicit credit for changes that are made based on their code review. I hope Marge Bot doesn't start stripping the r-b tags. But, if Marge can add Approved-by which allows the review process to flow more quickly for some types of merge-requests, then I think that's a good thing. I wouldn't be surprised if this became the most commonly used review process in Mesa. -Jordan
