[PATCH] drm-misc: Document review best practices

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:09:29PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> writes:
> 
> > Let's make sure that review doesn't go through needless cycles. Diff
> > doesn't show this, but this is only for the "small drivers" part of
> > drm.
> >
> > Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com>
> > Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drm-misc.rst | 12 +++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drm-misc.rst b/drm-misc.rst
> > index 73882dc55be6..d6367686d561 100644
> > --- a/drm-misc.rst
> > +++ b/drm-misc.rst
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ Merge Criteria
> >  
> >  Right now the only hard merge criteria are:
> >  
> > -* Patch is properly reviewed or at least ack, i.e. don't just push your own
> > +* Patch is properly reviewed or at least Ack, i.e. don't just push your own
> >    stuff directly.
> >  
> >  * drm-misc is for drm core (non-driver) patches, subsystem-wide refactorings,
> > @@ -132,6 +132,16 @@ Slightly different rules apply:
> >    most cases this will just along the lines of "Looks good, Ack".  drm-misc
> >    maintainers will help out with getting that review market going.
> >  
> > +* Best practice for review: When you have some suggestions and comments for
> > +  future work, please make sure you don't forget your Ack tag to unblock the
> > +  original patch. And if you think something really must be fixed before
> > +  merging, please give a conditional Ack along the lines of "Fix
> > +  $specific_thing, with that addressed, Ack". The goal is to always have a clear
> > +  and reasonable speedy path towards getting the patch merged. For authors on
> > +  the other side, just do the minimal rework and push the patch, and do any
> > +  more involved rework in follow-up work. This way lenghty review cycles get
> 
> "lengthy"

Already pushed, but fixed this one up here quickly. Thanks for reviewing.
-Daniel

> 
> > +  avoided, which are a drag for both reviewer and author.
> 
> Other than that,
> 
> Acked-by: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch