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 F299C9C3 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com (mail-pb0-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BAF0201A3 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id jt11so11245505pbb.8 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:05:56 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Daniel Vetter Message-ID: <20140528160556.GA22194@roeck-us.net> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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, May 28, 2014 at 04:26:47PM +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. It gets scary if people start to ignore the "Reviewer's statement of oversight" in SubmittingPatches. I don't treat my "Reviewed-by" tag lightly, and sincerely hope others don't either. Guenter