Require TWO team members review for externally written patches?

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Sun Jun 2 16:25:44 MDT 2013

On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 00:16 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> On 2013-06-01 at 11:14 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> > On 1 June 2013 10:58, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 10:49 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here are three trivial patches related to the above.  I hope you don't
> > > > mind them attached to the e-mail like this.
> > >
> > > This is perfectly fine.
> > 
> > Thanks, Andrew.  I've just realised I didn't add Signed-off-by to the
> > patches, so here they are again.
> Well, Andrew already pushed the patches. Now they are not only
> missing the signoff but also a second review by a team member.  :-)

While I've seen Jeremy doing that, I never understood that to be the
process, and if we must discuss that again I would oppose it, as it only
adds friction to the typically small and useful patches that our
external contributors bring. 

The purpose of the review process is to ensure someone else, other than
the author, thinks it's OK.  That reviewer may want extra review (I
asked that a patch go past kai or amitay as well recently, despite being
a one-liner), but I see NO value in *requiring* the involvement in two
team members.  It just makes extra work for value.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 

More information about the samba-technical mailing list