DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
        :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
        :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=PU88vq0k6Vkl/jBbSh5ZXh6CBBWASisU
        St5+jOEQpmkqsS46XdL6zyPizLDMgFu3dOSrqD7qWsGMt8SYzBrlQEe0Em6gscE7
        9kbo3z349p51MPMhziNP9TGazkUTl8pegSFrSSPgZK8IRN6ICvB5h/5xguupFbDt
        16Rg6oxmB+E=
From:   Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To:     Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@gmail.com>,
        Adam Dinwoodie <adam@dinwoodie.org>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: correct command formatting
References: <20170928140648.GC9439@dinwoodie.org>
        <70decbc2-093c-9f9a-3661-ee6500cec641@gmail.com>
        <20170928193412.GB174074@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
        <xmqqk20iz2w9.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
        <20170929032653.GA28303@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:07:29 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20170929032653.GA28303@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> (Jonathan
        Nieder's message of "Thu, 28 Sep 2017 20:27:29 -0700")
Message-ID: <xmqqpoaaxi4e.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> Separate from this example: yes, I think adopting Linux's Reviewed-by
> convention would be a good thing.  When I see a positive reply to a
> patch, I often wonder whether an ack or a fuller reviewed-by is
> intended, and Linux's way of formalizing that appeals to me.
>
> I'll try sending a patch to add it to SubmittingPatches tomorrow
> morning (Stefan had also been hinting recently about this being
> something worth trying).

Thanks.  

I agree with the goal of educating list participants not to throw
Reviewed-by: without reading the patches too carelessly.  As akpm
once said in <20121003143200.69a50aad.akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Looks ok to me from a quick look" is not a review.

    > > No, lib/lzo has no identifiable maintainer.  I suggest you proceed as
    > > follows:
    > > 
    > > - Post the entire patch series to lkml for review (I'd like a cc please)
    > 
    > Already happened, multiple people reviewed and tested.

    um, I would not consider "Looks ok to me from a quick look." and "I
    couldn't tell from the github view, but I assume you follow standard
    coding style." to indicate a rigorous code review!

    That's the problem with the git presentation: hardly anyone reads the
    patches and there is no patch for a reviewer to reply to.

    So please send the patches out for review.  One at a time, via email.