On 6/4/2014 9:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
>> Dave Chinner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15
>>> minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it
On 6/4/2014 9:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15
minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
>
> > If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15
> > minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it takes you to read the
> > patchset?
>
> Yeah,
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15
minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it takes you to read the
patchset?
On 06/03/2014 03:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 00:48 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:12:05PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > "Tested-by:" tags would be more helpful if the test
> > cases that were used were somehow sent along with the
> > signature.
[]
> Tested-by is usually used for a fix of some
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:48:16 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> This is _often_ not like userspace programs where you can write a
> testsuite to exercise the corner cases. Kernel problems can be
> tied up with intricate details of the hardware, or equally they
> might happen only for certain usage, and
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:12:05PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> "Tested-by:" tags would be more helpful if the test
> cases that were used were somehow sent along with the
> signature.
>
To me, that seems either a perverse, or else a bureaucratic,
interpretation of what should go where.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 05:46:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:52:53 -0400
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
>
> > The important thing to note here is that we do not have consensus
> > across all subsystems what Reviewed-by: means, and I think that's OK.
> > The Reviewed-by: is
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:52:53 -0400
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The important thing to note here is that we do not have consensus
> across all subsystems what Reviewed-by: means, and I think that's OK.
> The Reviewed-by: is mostly of interest to the maintainer before the
> patch is submitted to
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I know from experience that a "quick" 15 minute run on xfstests on a
> > ramdisk will catch 99% of typical problems a filesystem patch might
> > introduce. Code coverage reporting (done recently by RH QE
> > engineers) tells me
On 06/03/2014 10:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
>
But you can't say that is it both free of techical and known
issues without both reading the code and testing it (Reviewed-by).
>>>
>>> I disagree. Testing only tests what you
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
Dave Chinner wrote:
> If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15
> minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it takes you to read the
> patchset?
Yeah, what about that?
>
> IMO, every reviewer has their own developement environment
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:37:55 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > Very good! I resent the series, replacing Dipankar with Josh as
> > co-maintainer, and adding Steven (perhaps prematurely) and Mathieu
> > as designated
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:37:55 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> Very good! I resent the series, replacing Dipankar with Josh as
> co-maintainer, and adding Steven (perhaps prematurely) and Mathieu
> as designated reviewers.
I'm fine with being added. Although I seldom have time to review your
linux.intel.com, fweis...@gmail.com,
> > o...@redhat.com, s...@mit.edu
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:16:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:30:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 08:25:51PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700,
t; a...@linux-foundation.org, "mathieu desnoyers"
> , n...@us.ibm.com, t...@linutronix.de,
> pet...@infradead.org, dhowe...@redhat.com,
> eduma...@google.com, dvh...@linux.intel.com, fweis...@gmail.com,
> o...@redhat.com, s...@mit.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:16:54 AM
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:30:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:11:25 +1000
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
>
> > You've ignored the (c).(2) "free of known issues" criteria there.
> > You cannot say a patch is free of issues if you haven't applied,
> > compiled and tested it.
>
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:30:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:11:25 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
You've ignored the (c).(2) free of known issues criteria there.
You cannot say a patch is free of issues if you haven't applied,
compiled and tested
: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add R: designated-reviewers tag
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:30:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:11:25 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
You've ignored the (c).(2) free of known issues criteria there.
You cannot
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 08:25:51PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
From: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at
...@redhat.com, s...@mit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:16:54 AM
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add R: designated-reviewers tag
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:30:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:11:25 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:37:55 -0700
Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Very good! I resent the series, replacing Dipankar with Josh as
co-maintainer, and adding Steven (perhaps prematurely) and Mathieu
as designated reviewers.
I'm fine with being added. Although I seldom have
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:16:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:37:55 -0700
Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Very good! I resent the series, replacing Dipankar with Josh as
co-maintainer, and adding Steven (perhaps prematurely) and Mathieu
as
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
If you take it to an extremes. Think about what you can test in 15
minutes. Or for larger patchsets, how long it takes you to read the
patchset?
Yeah, what about that?
IMO, every reviewer has their own developement
On 06/03/2014 10:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:16:54 +1000
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote:
But you can't say that is it both free of techical and known
issues without both reading the code and testing it (Reviewed-by).
I disagree. Testing only tests what you
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
I know from experience that a quick 15 minute run on xfstests on a
ramdisk will catch 99% of typical problems a filesystem patch might
introduce. Code coverage reporting (done recently by RH QE
engineers) tells me that this
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:52:53 -0400
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
The important thing to note here is that we do not have consensus
across all subsystems what Reviewed-by: means, and I think that's OK.
The Reviewed-by: is mostly of interest to the maintainer before the
patch is submitted
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 05:46:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:52:53 -0400
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
The important thing to note here is that we do not have consensus
across all subsystems what Reviewed-by: means, and I think that's OK.
The Reviewed-by:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:12:05PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Tested-by: tags would be more helpful if the test
cases that were used were somehow sent along with the
signature.
To me, that seems either a perverse, or else a bureaucratic,
interpretation of what should go where.
Tested-by
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:48:16 +0100
Ken Moffat zarniwh...@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is _often_ not like userspace programs where you can write a
testsuite to exercise the corner cases. Kernel problems can be
tied up with intricate details of the hardware, or equally they
might happen only for
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 00:48 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:12:05PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
Tested-by: tags would be more helpful if the test
cases that were used were somehow sent along with the
signature.
[]
Tested-by is usually used for a fix of some problem, often
On 06/03/2014 03:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 11:11:25 +1000
Dave Chinner wrote:
> You've ignored the (c).(2) "free of known issues" criteria there.
> You cannot say a patch is free of issues if you haven't applied,
> compiled and tested it.
>
> > We should not, for instance, prevent someone from providing a
> >
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:59:15PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:19:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > What it needs is testing, not reviewing.
> > >
> > > I tested it for all of 10 seconds.
> >
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 16:24:24 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:19:49 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > Anyone using Reviewed-by without having actually applied and tested
> > the patch is mis-using the tag
>
> I think you just described 94.7% of Reviewed-by:s.
94.8%
/me me
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 16:59 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> Acked-by and Reviewed-by mean two different things (Reviewed-by being a
> superset of Acked-by), and the difference is not "I've applied and
> tested this"; that's Tested-by.
I think the standards for every signature tag other
than
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:19:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:09 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:19:49 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
> Anyone using Reviewed-by without having actually applied and tested
> the patch is mis-using the tag
I think you just described 94.7% of Reviewed-by:s.
> - they should be using Acked-by: if
> all they have done is read the code in their
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:09 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > > this should go along with a
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:26:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > this should go along with a change to
> > > get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:40:38PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 06/02/2014 12:36 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers,
gt; ,
> n...@us.ibm.com, t...@linutronix.de, pet...@infradead.org,
> rost...@goodmis.org, dhowe...@redhat.com,
> eduma...@google.com, dvh...@linux.intel.com, fweis...@gmail.com,
> o...@redhat.com, s...@mit.edu
> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 3:27:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2]
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:55:50PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I sometimes review patches in areas where
> > I have no commits.
>
> Lots of people review patches all over the tree.
> That doesn't mean they want to be or should be
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I sometimes review patches in areas where
> I have no commits.
Lots of people review patches all over the tree.
That doesn't mean they want to be or should be cc'd.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:36:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan
> > > as
On 06/02/2014 12:36 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan
>>> as reviewers as well, with their
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan
> > as reviewers as well, with their consent.
>
> Mathieu, Oleg, Lai, any objections?
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > this should go along with a change to
> > get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
>
> Something like this:
To test this, I added a comment to
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:09 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > this should go along with a change to
> > > get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon,
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > this should go along with a change to
> > get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
>
> Something like this:
Yes, exactly. Given an appropriate commit
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 02,
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:50:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
> > > who I would not trust as
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> this should go along with a change to
> get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
Something like this:
---
scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 22 +-
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:50:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
> > > who I would not trust as
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
> > who I would not trust as full maintainers. The ability to find defects
> > is valuable in and of
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
> who I would not trust as full maintainers. The ability to find defects
> is valuable in and of itself, and should be recognized as such, even
> when not
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > A ksummit-discuss email thread
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
> > > and retaining reviewers.
> >
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
> > and retaining reviewers.
>
> []
>
> > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
> > submitters to
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 13:29 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:22:58 -0700 Joe Perches wrote:
> > > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
> > > submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
> > > "R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:22:58 -0700
Joe Perches wrote:
> > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
> > submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
> > "R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information on a
> > per-subsystem basis.
>
> I'm not sure of the
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
> and retaining reviewers.
[]
> Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
> submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
> "R:" tag to the
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
and retaining reviewers. Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
"R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information on a
From: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
and retaining reviewers. Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
R: tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
and retaining reviewers.
[]
Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
R: tag to the
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:22:58 -0700
Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
R: tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information on a
per-subsystem basis.
I'm not sure of
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 13:29 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:22:58 -0700 Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
R: tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
and retaining reviewers.
[]
Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
submitters to know who
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
and retaining reviewers.
[]
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
who I would not trust as full maintainers. The ability to find defects
is valuable in and of itself, and should be recognized as such, even
when not accompanied
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
who I would not trust as full maintainers. The ability to find defects
is valuable in
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:50:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
who I would not
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700,
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
this should go along with a change to
get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
Something like this:
---
scripts/get_maintainer.pl | 22 +-
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:50:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:44:29 -0700
Joe Perches j...@perches.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:16 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
But there have been people who have found serious issues in RCU patches
who I would not
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
this should go along with a change to
get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
Something like this:
Yes, exactly. Given an appropriate commit message,
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:09 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
this should go along with a change to
get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
this should go along with a change to
get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
Something like this:
To test this, I added a comment to
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:08:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:56:35AM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan
as reviewers as well, with their consent.
Mathieu, Oleg, Lai, any objections?
I
On 06/02/2014 12:36 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan
as reviewers as well, with their consent.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:36:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov, and Lai Jiangshan
as reviewers as well,
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I sometimes review patches in areas where
I have no commits.
Lots of people review patches all over the tree.
That doesn't mean they want to be or should be cc'd.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:55:50PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I sometimes review patches in areas where
I have no commits.
Lots of people review patches all over the tree.
That doesn't mean they want to be or should be cc'd.
True
...@efficios.com,
n...@us.ibm.com, t...@linutronix.de, pet...@infradead.org,
rost...@goodmis.org, dhowe...@redhat.com,
eduma...@google.com, dvh...@linux.intel.com, fweis...@gmail.com,
o...@redhat.com, s...@mit.edu
Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 3:27:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:40:38PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On 06/02/2014 12:36 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:27 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:11:55PM -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
I'd suggest adding Mathieu Desnoyers, Oleg Nesterov,
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:26:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
this should go along with a change to
get_maintainer.pl to add those folks to the CC list.
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 12:09 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:05:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:55 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
this should go along with a change to
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
