Re: [PATCH 0/2] cocci: codify authoring and reviewing practices

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 17, 2023, 16:21 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqilduo4x1.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BEWaojwSpMaYT1VqNBYuhETm-QB9UyFsC-ePsu9B_e_aQ@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> ....  Maybe
> the wording should instead be "It's okay to give a Reviewed-by: on a
> series that also contains cocci changes when you are unfamiliar with
> coccinelle; just state that your Reviewed-by is limited to the other
> bits".  Or maybe the instructions should just be to give an Acked-by.
> You should probably have someone familiar enough with coccinelle that
> they know what is worth worrying about weigh in on that aspect.
>
> But you can have my Acked-by on the other bits.  :-)

The value of Reviewed-by takes two sides to determine. Even if we reserve a Reviewed-by to "I have reviewed the entirety of this patch, and the patch is something I can stand behind" (as opposed to "my understanding of this patch is iffy in this and that area, but all the other parts of the patch is something I can stand behind"), the value of such a Reviewed-by is conditional to "how well does the reviewer actually know the area?" A drive-by "Reviewed-by:" thrown into a review discussion thread by a total stranger would not carry much weight, until we know how much they are familiar with and how good a taste they have.

And honest qualifying comments like "my understanding of this and that area is iffy so I cannot endorse these parts" helps build trust by others in the reviewer who gives such a partial review and we should encourage such behaviour. I agree "Acked-by:" with comments is a good idea.

Thanks.