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 BB9FD9B1 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (relay6-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.198]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15F5F1FA26 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:28:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:28:33 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Mimi Zohar Message-ID: <20140528162833.GA23815@thin> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> 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 12:20:20PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > 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. Or perhaps in LWN's statistics, which focus on Signed-off-by but don't mention Reviewed-by at all. - Josh Triplett