On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 31.10.2013 16:04, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Am 31.10.2013 15:39, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>>>> On 31 October 2013 14:18, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> 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. > > I *asked* about what to do with my QEMU CPU patches that only get a > "looks okay" and got only positive answers for whether that should be an > Acked-by and no objection, including none from you. > I certainly said nothing at all about the kernel. > >> At no point did a "rule" get made though. > > The new rule you made was: no patch without Reviewed-by.
Andreas, I have no idea where you're getting this from. I think you misunderstood what was discussed at the QEMU Summit. Again, there are no new rules. I spoke about encouraging more reviews on list because it's something we need to focus on as a community. I think you need to step back a bit and give folks the benefit of the doubt. No one is doing anything malicious here. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Peter sending that PULL and Edgar merging it both violate that rule. > No objection against a particular patch function-wise. > > Point is, had Peter ping'ed me before sending out that pull, he would've > actually gotten a Reviewed-by from me, thereby satisfying your rule! He > didn't, ignoring that he himself had actually told me to queue the > patches before his vacation, for which obviously I reviewed and tested them. > > Maybe there's no obligation for picking up tags, but then again you > can't go ahead and do statistics over incompletely recorded tags. > > Regards, > Andreas > >>> 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 > > > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
