Re: [PATCH v2] docs: submitting-patches: Clarify half-baked review tags

[Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>]

> > Yes, if you want to spoil that, you'd need to introduce
> > 
> > 	Partly-reviewed-by: ...
> > 
> > or something.
> 
> Ack is for that, no need for a new tag, quoting:
> 
> "Acked-by.... user may not have carried out a technical review of the
> patch, yet they may be satisfied ..."

It seems you are mainly aiming about the "Ack/Rev"-distinction problem.
I don't care so much about this. I care more about the "# subpart"
problem. A list of 10 Acks without subpart is to me as useless as 10
Revs without subpart. The subparts give me the idea which parts of the
patch have been looked at in some way, at least.

> "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that *the patch* has been reviewed and
> found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:"

So, for the SPI patch: if someone spent time and reviewed the complex
core changes, but only 2 out of dozens of drivers, this would be an Ack
according to you. I would, however, understand that this person doesn't
want to repeat the boring driver review a number of times. I'd happily
accept an:

	Reviewed-by: <hero@reviwers.org> # for the core parts

But still, the driver parts need review. We got a similar patch for I2C
and 4 drivers out of those needed some cosmetic improvements. I reviewed
that. But I did not review the changes in the dmaengine core which lead
to the driver-fixes patch.