Re: Reviewed-By: and pastebins

[Ray Strode <halfline gmail com>]

Hi,

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Colin Walters <walters verbum org> wrote:
> In this scenario, I don't want to lose the critical information that the
> patch has been reviewed (and who reviewed it).  So here's the proposal:
I think when the person who reviewed a patch is critical information,
then the details of the review is normally also important.

I don't think the person who reviewed a patch is always critical
information, though.  Certainly, drive-by pastebin patches should be
trivial and obvious.  If the proposed changes aren't trivial and
obvious, then they should go to bugzilla first so there is a paper
trail leading back to the discussion.

Basically, adding the reviewer's name doesn't hurt anything, but my
opinion is it doesn't necessarily help either.  What does help is
knowing that the patch was sanity checked at all (like you said), and
not committed blindly, and at that point adding the person who did the
sanity checking doesn't seem like a bad idea.

--Ray