On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:11:28PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 09:14:00PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

> > You could make a Reviewed-by tag required before a patch can be
> > included in a submaintainer's tree.  At least some maintainers seem to
> > (arbitrarily?) require this at times.  However, if you do that then it
> > would likely slow down development quite a bit.

> It doesn't seem to have slowed down the rate of change for the
> subsystems that currently require this, so why do you think it would?

I think there's probably a cause and effect thing going on there - it's
more likely that a subsystem will start to impose such requirements if
they are confident that it is practical to get reviews of sufficient
quality in.  I'd guess at least some of the time it's a formalisation of
existing practice rather than a completely new requirement.

> > (I would love to see a graph comparing rate of change to rate of
> > regressions/bugs, but then people would have to know the latter.)

> Want to start tracking that?  We've needed someone to do that work for
> quite some time now, the fact that we've gotten by without it either
> means that no one sees the value in funding such a position and/or it's
> not really something that anyone cares about...

Well, first we'd need to find a way of counting the bugs and
regressions.