[coreboot] [RFC] Add reviewed-by markers to code sections
corey.osgood at gmail.com
Thu Dec 11 21:27:55 CET 2008
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 11.12.2008 02:19, ron minnich wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
> >> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >>> In the past, reviews were mostly centered on coding style (not only
> >>> cosmetics, but also code flow) and general sanity. While that is
> >>> definitely needed, I propose another layer on top of this:
> >>> Verification of the code and comments against data sheet
> >>> recommendations and documentation.
> >> I feel very strongly that we do not need more layers.
> Let me rephrase that.
> I do not want to hold back any commits. That would be insane.
> However, whenever someone goes through in-tree code and checks the code
> against the data sheets and thinks that the code is OK, he/she should be
> free (not obliged) to improve annotation/comments and add a comment that
> he/she verified the code against the data sheets.
IMO, if we do this, we need to also require the datasheet revision/release
date and if any update notes or errata are taken into account.
> > There are problems anyway. What if the doco are known to be wrong, due
> > to an NDA, and you can't even say "the doco is wrong".
> If the NDA is so strict that you can't even say that the docs are wrong,
> how are you preventing erroneous "bugfixes" from being committed? I
> honestly have no idea how to solve that problem and it exists regardless
> of whether my RFC is accepted or not.
> > Sorry, I vote with peter.
> I understand that because my original RFC implied things I didn't want
> to suggest. How about the new text I proposed above?
> coreboot mailing list: coreboot at coreboot.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the coreboot