Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists)

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:08 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 07/08/2015 11:53 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:00:32 +0100
> > jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> We can alter that somewhat.  We used to run a Maintainers lottery for
> >>> the kernel summit ... we could instead offer places based on the number
> >>> of Reviewed-by: tags ... we have all the machinery to calculate that.  I
> >>> know an invitation to the kernel summit isn't a huge incentive, but it's
> >>> a useful one.
> >>
> >> Sounds like a good idea to me, though it would only effect a tiny
> >> percentage of our reviewers.  I suppose publishing a short list of the top
> >> n% of reviewers from which the lottery runs might give some
> >> recognition.
> >>
> >
> > I personally don't trust a Reviewed-by tag much, as I sometimes see
> > them appear without any comments.
> >
> 
> Except for the following, they are always reliable and can be trusted.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Edsel Murphy <edsel@murphy.com>
> 
> Seriously, it does happen that I send Reviewed-by: or Acked-by: feedback if
> a patch is just fine as-is. What do you expect the reviewer to do in such
> a case ?

There's almost always something you can say.

Even if it's a trivial patch, eg. a spelling fix, as the reviewer you should be
confirming that only the spelling fix happened, ie. no other changes slipped
into the diff. And so you can say that.

If it's more complex than a spelling fix then there's usually something you can
comment on.

There might be times when all you can say is "Yep, logic looks right" which
might seem redundant, but personally I'd prefer to see that than just a plain
Reviewed-by.

cheers