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 D9C5C82D for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 13:07:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27817200D5 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 13:07:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:07:28 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner Message-ID: <20140530130728.GB2419@quack.suse.cz> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140529182753.GJ25041@thunk.org> <700704721.GMn4j9GJx9@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140529233004.GB11741@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri 30-05-14 12:08:12, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2014, Greg KH wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 16:30:04 -0700 > > From: Greg KH > > To: Olof Johansson > > Cc: James Bottomley , > > "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" > > > > Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging > > more reviewers) > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:03:16PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > What are we really trying to fix here? Is the current process really > > > broken or are we trying to create more process that's not needed for > > > some other reason? > > > > I think the latter. > > > > Somehow, we seem to be constantly increasing our rate of change, are > > people thinking we are having problems here? If so, exactly where? > > This thread has taken an odd turn into trying to make some new kind of > > process for an unknown issue (i.e. the people on this list are not going > > to recognize the reviewers more, it's up to you to educate your managers > > / company more.) > > This is not only about managers / company. Reviewers does not seem > to have much recognition in upstream community either. For example > we do take into account s-o-b when creating preliminary list of > people to get invited to kernel summit, but we do _not_ take into > account reviewd-by (or has anything changed?)... Reviewed-by *is* taken into account for KS selection. It is even positively biased against s-o-b AFAIK. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR