From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D979C3 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1362F200A4 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:20:25 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A99C3E4003B for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:20:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s4SEH3Ph10879248 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:17:03 +0200 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s4SGKMKY006746 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:20:22 -0600 Message-ID: <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> From: Mimi Zohar To: Daniel Vetter Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:20:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 16:26 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> However encouraging reviewers by treating reviewed-by tag with equal > >> "respect" as signed-off-by seems like the better way. > > > > I would even argue that it should be treated more seriously than sign-offs. > > After all, there are more patches applied (and all of them are signed-off > > by at least one person) than there are commits with the Reviewed-by tag. > > Fully agreed on given reviews more credit than sobs. Authors of > feature already get all the praise and publicity for doing something > visible, which means review is always a background chore. But if we > lack reviewers then the pipeline for merging patches gets seriously > clogged up. At least that's been my experience with drm/i915, and > pretty much all the people there work for my employer so I can _make_ > them review code. Still not enough. > > It's a fine line though since we absolutely don't want people to > rubber-stamp 20 patches in half an hour just because someone told them > they need to "review" them. Plain more visibility to reviewers (lwn > stats?) might help even with the risk that it will be gamed for sure. > -Daniel Like the other tags, 'Reviewed-by' isn't automatically generated and requires agreement from the person. Perhaps the tag name implies too much responsibility, perhaps a 'Commented-by' tag would be less daunting for people reviewing the code. And if it was highlighted in the statistics at the conference talks, then maybe there would be more participation. Mimi