From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [RFH] How to review patches: Documentation/ReviewingPatches? Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:14:22 +0100 Message-ID: <200902150214.24146.jnareb@gmail.com> References: <200902130045.59395.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 15 02:17:54 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LYVdm-0006Oo-Km for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:17:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752344AbZBOBO2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:14:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752148AbZBOBO1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:14:27 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:39589 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751795AbZBOBO1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:14:27 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so89329fgg.17 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:14:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=g6KGXDiXbJ8iAQidNZNwFinKJ6h88UTH80UnK758nWM=; b=vWtSd2wfNrmMez13vBN2Z/VDyl+BA5HqUnClTOqPQnPHY/73D3JZ20tmeBpB59SwoO /LbH0fLJ3H6udTqzb0cZg3OwRAg2DmyUvZr7R68jICN+R9Bizjp502Y7wq/4wo9Cbt8L JpgLEqGF2Rd+JcteZrbOVTvQR0xhBzn66XLaI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id; b=Tce9bUNZJxJFKB6x5vfEQNwSnYRzx1PxDIauL5cLAIWKqmrpt8KTIabSKZo+8BS+fT ar1UpgjvdbT0l/mXKZkY/8VyKWS9F5N9QJ50bkAHxnZ8EutGI80q9Upyqk0te8l1evFu lm4Hl6nueJsYLc24B8rw72dIf7tTRk8LPNUzY= Received: by 10.86.100.19 with SMTP id x19mr597870fgb.29.1234660465299; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.13? (abvc8.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.8.200.8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l19sm5227088fgb.57.2009.02.14.17.14.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:14:24 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > There is another reason why I do not want any ReviewingPatches: reviewing > is already such a tedious process; let's not make it harder by forcing a > potential reviewer to sift through a document (the same could be said > about SubmittingPatches; IMHO it just repeats what common sense would do > anyway when imitating existing code). > > I'd rather suggest to patch submitters to make such a good case that all > the world is interested in their patch, throwing a lot of eyeballs (AKA > review) at it. Well, I thought of ReviewingPatches less as of listing set of rules to follow, as in the case of SubmittingPatches (because there output is processed by tools, and preserved), but rather as set of guidelines and hints. Something like "rules" of programming :-). -- Jakub Narebski Poland