Hi all, On Sat, 24 May 2014 13:53:45 +0400 James Bottomley wrote: > > The latter was supposed > to be helped by having the Reviewed-by: tag so we gave credit to > reviewers. I've found the Reviewed-by tag to be a bit of a double edged > sword: it is a good way of giving review credits, but I also see patches > that come in initially with it on (usually the signoff and the > reviewed-by are from people in the same company) ... it's not > necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't add much value to the kernel > review process, because we're looking for independent reviews. The > other thing I find problematic is that some people respond to a patch > with a Reviewed-by: tag and nothing more. I'm really looking for > evidence of actually having read (and understood) the patch, so the best > review usually comes with a sequence of comments, questions and minor > nits and a reviewed-by at the end. Some stats (I know you all love stats :-)): for next-20140523, no merge commits, origin/master..HEAD^ (exclude Linus' tree and my Next files commit) commits: 7717 commits with more than one Signed-off-by: 6291 commits with Reviewed-by: 1369 commits with Tested-by: 354 Not sure what these show ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au