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 ESMTPS id DB308BB6 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:45:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2E09112 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 12:44:56 -0700 From: Darren Hart To: Michael Ellerman Message-ID: <20150709194456.GF9169@vmdeb7> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <1481488.5WJFbB0Dlm@vostro.rjw.lan> <1436341028.2136.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150708080032.CE89E4306F@saturn.retrosnub.co.uk> <20150708145315.29030a75@gandalf.local.home> <559D8336.3040802@roeck-us.net> <1436414798.23558.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1436414798.23558.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> Cc: James Bottomley , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:06:38PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:08 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 07/08/2015 11:53 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:00:32 +0100 > > > jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> We can alter that somewhat. We used to run a Maintainers lottery for > > >>> the kernel summit ... we could instead offer places based on the number > > >>> of Reviewed-by: tags ... we have all the machinery to calculate that. I > > >>> know an invitation to the kernel summit isn't a huge incentive, but it's > > >>> a useful one. > > >> > > >> Sounds like a good idea to me, though it would only effect a tiny > > >> percentage of our reviewers. I suppose publishing a short list of the top > > >> n% of reviewers from which the lottery runs might give some > > >> recognition. > > >> > > > > > > I personally don't trust a Reviewed-by tag much, as I sometimes see > > > them appear without any comments. > > > > > > > Except for the following, they are always reliable and can be trusted. > > > > Reviewed-by: Edsel Murphy > > > > Seriously, it does happen that I send Reviewed-by: or Acked-by: feedback if > > a patch is just fine as-is. What do you expect the reviewer to do in such > > a case ? > > There's almost always something you can say. > > Even if it's a trivial patch, eg. a spelling fix, as the reviewer you should be > confirming that only the spelling fix happened, ie. no other changes slipped > into the diff. And so you can say that. > > If it's more complex than a spelling fix then there's usually something you can > comment on. > > There might be times when all you can say is "Yep, logic looks right" which > might seem redundant, but personally I'd prefer to see that than just a plain > Reviewed-by. Agreed. I have this same conversation about commit messages. I don't care if it's a whitespace fix, if it is worth patching, building, testing, and submitting, it is worth writing a sentence about why you did it and what it's for. The same applies to a review. What did you confirm? Did you build it? Run checkpatch or some other static analysis? I think I'm also guilty of a one-line review now and then, but I'll be sure to include detail in the future. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center