* Segher Boessenkool segher@kernel.crashing.org [061211 17:13]:
Oh, I fully understand why patches should be reviewed by other people, and why someone "senior" should approve patches before they are committed to the SVN tree.
I'm just challenging the usefulness of the Acked-by tag in the commit message.
Oh this is simple: The commit message is used as the interface to the subversion server. There is no other way of easily handling a successful review on basis of commit hooks.
The whole magic behind these rules is that they're _automatically enforced.
As soon as abuild works for everyone, this should be made a requirement. Even now already, we should encourage people to say with their patch submissions "abuild ran with no new failures" or similar.
abuild runs great. I have not seen any bug reports in a whole while. And I am sure no developer is overstrained by running a bash shell script. Having people explicitly state they ran abuild could do some of the trick.
- Emergency fixes. Hopefully never needed and better discussed
widely before committing. This should really just be treated as an exception outside of the normal framework I guess.
This is a hot topic. What would qualify as such an emergency?
- Revert of one's own recent commits, if problems show up after
the fact.
Ack.
Stefan