Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify that in English "reviewer" is a person

On 18/05/2026 10:31, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 5/16/26 16:39, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>> On 5/16/26 14:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Common understanding of word "Reviewer" is: a person performing a review
>>> work [1]. Tools are not persons, thus cannot be reviewers in this term.
>>> Also tools cannot make statements ("A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of
>>> opinion"), since making a statement needs some sort of conscious mind.
>>>
>>> Our docs already clearly mark that "Reviewed-by" must come from a
>>> person:
>>>
>>>  - "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
>>>
>>>    Usage of first person "I" and word "state"
>>>
>>>  - "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
>>>     appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
>>>
>>>    Only a person can make a statement of opinion.
>>>
>>>  - "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
>>>    Reviewed-by"
>>>
>>>    A person can offer a tag thus above does not grant the tool
>>>    permission to offer a tag.
>>>
>>> However this is not enough and apparently English is not that precise,
>>> so let's clarify that only a person can state the "Reviewer's statement
>>> of oversight".
>>>
>>> Link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer [1]
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>
>> I agree with the intent that the tag is for people (whether they use a tool
>> or not to help them). We also don't put "Tested-by: kernel test robot" or
>> syzkaller on every commit that they test and find no bugs. Review is also
>> not just about absence of bugs, but agreeing with the larger design and
>> whether the change makes sense to do in the first place.
> 
> I'd assume that SOB/RB/ACK would all be real persons, not tools.
> 
> For SOB we term it as "known identity". I'd assume that a tool is not an
> identity ...
> 
> So maybe we should also talk about "know identity" here?

I think this - s/person/known identity/ - is a good idea. We should not
have aliases and anonymous reviews because these are not accountable.

I got few acks already and I plan to retain them in v2, so please let me
know if you disagree with keeping Ack/Reviewed-by while replacing this
to known identity.



Best regards,
Krzysztof