[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] CONTRIBUTING: formalize review rules

[Daniel Vetter]

There's a bunch of reasons why I think we should formalize and enforce
our review rules for igt patches:

- We have a lot of new engineers joining and review helps enormously
  with mentoring and learning. But right now only patches from
  contributors without commit rights are consistently subjected to
  review, which makes this imbalanced and removes senior contributors
  from the review pool.

- We have a much bigger team and we need to make sure we're aligned on
  where igt as a tool and testsuite needs to head towards. Getting
  that alignment happens through reviewing each other's submission.
  Pushing a contentious patch and then dealing with a heated irc
  discussion is much less effective.

- Finally igt becomes ever more important for our testing, making sure
  the code quality is high is important. Review helps with that.

v2: Improve wording a bit (Imre).

Acked-by: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
Acked-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
Acked-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
Acked-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss at collabora.com>
Acked-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
Acked-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
Acked-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
---
 CONTRIBUTING | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING b/CONTRIBUTING
index d2adcf03b7c3..561c5dd80bba 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTING
+++ b/CONTRIBUTING
@@ -26,10 +26,11 @@ A short list of contribution guidelines:
   convenience macros provided by the igt library. The semantic patch lib/igt.cocci
   can help with the more automatic conversions.
 
-- There is no formal review requirement and regular contributors with commit
-  access can push patches right after submitting them to the mailing lists. But
-  invasive changes, new helper libraries and contributions from newcomers should
-  go through a proper review to ensure overall consistency in the codebase.
+- Patches need to be reviewed on the mailing list. Exceptions only apply for
+  testcases and tooling for drivers with just a single contributor (e.g. vc4).
+  In this case patches must still be submitted to the mailing list first.
+  Testcase should preferrably be cross-reviewed by the same people who write and
+  review the kernel feature itself.
 
 - When patches from new contributors (without commit access) are stuck, for
   anything related to the regular releases, issues with packaging and
-- 
2.13.2