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 782DF996 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77A3D1FA42 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:21:14 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 14:38:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1849144.CmpsQG9Pds@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1400952709.6956.50.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cc: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Saturday, May 24, 2014 10:15:52 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:31 AM, James Bottomley > wrote: [cut] > Better tools are always nice, but I agree they won't address the "lack > of reviewers" problem. I'm a little concerned that the real problem > is that the complexity of the system makes it unapproachable except to > the few who can afford to work in one area full-time (I'm talking > about the complexity of accumulated warts, not the unavoidable > complexity of the hardware itself). I agree. If a change is deep enough, you need to know a lot about the code that's already there to review it, and not just about one subsystem usually, and you also need to know *why* it is there which in many cases is undocumented and may be specific to certain special cases. Rafael