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 8D970A04 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC3C811B for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:21:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iggp10 with SMTP id p10so21995936igg.0 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:21:52 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Darren Hart Message-ID: <20150709202152.GE1237@dtor-ws> 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> <20150709193951.GE9169@vmdeb7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150709193951.GE9169@vmdeb7> 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 12:39:51PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:53:15PM -0400, 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. > > > > I was thinking of writing a perl script that would read my LKML archive > > and somewhat intelligently looking at people who replied to patches, > > that also has snippets of the patch in the reply, and counting them. I > > think that would be a more accurate use of real reviewers than just the > > Reviewed-by tag. > > Agreed. Unless there is commentary accompanying the review, it doesn't add a > lot. No, that is not always true. If I see a naked "reviewed-by" from a person who's been working on the subsystem quite a bit and shown a good judgement it is enough for me. I do not need them to find something to nitpick over so that there is "meat" to the review. > While the nod of approval builds incremental confidence, the true measure > of a review is a resulting change to the patch for the better. Of course, a good > review takes the same amount of time regardless of if a change is required. Thanks. -- Dmitry