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 B2CBCA04 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0333C147 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:23:25 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Darren Hart Message-ID: <20150709202325.GA5154@roeck-us.net> 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> <559EBD4C.6030502@gmail.com> <20150709190640.GC788@roeck-us.net> <20150709194734.GG9169@vmdeb7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150709194734.GG9169@vmdeb7> Cc: James Bottomley , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk, Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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 12:47:34PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 12:23:20PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:28:28AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote: > > > On 7/8/2015 9:06 PM, 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. > > > > > > I don't expect my Reviewed-by tag with no extra comments to carry much weight > > > if I send it to a maintainer who does not know me. > > > > > > But if I have a history of good reviews to a specific maintainer, then why > > > should I have to add a message that says: Yes, I really, really did review > > > the patch. I truly mean that the patch "has been reviewed and found acceptable > > > according to the Reviewer's Statement" as listed in SubmittingPatches. > > > > > > And I read Steve's qualification of "don't trust ... _much_" as being > > > consistent with what I am saying, so I'm fine with that. The point I > > > want to make is that a Reviewed-by tag without comments should not > > > always be assumed to be without meaning or value. > > > > > Absolutely agree. > > > > It looks like we have yet another set of diverging maintainer expectations. > > Some maintainers will expect me to provide an extra comment, which I'll > > have to phrase carefully to avoid it being misinterpreted as "I just > > glanced at the code and didn't find an obvious issue with it". > > Others will get annoyed at me providing the extra comment. > > Why would a couple lines of context be any harder to deal with than all the > meta-data that comes along with an email including a Reviewed-by? > No, but that isn't the point. I use patchwork, which takes care of automatically adding all tags and removing the clutter around it, so I don't really care one way or another. I neither expect reviewers to provide additional comments, nor do I mind if they do provide such comments. I see comments as beneficial on complex reviews, or if a reviewer had an earlier concern which was addressed by feedback from the submitter but did not result in code changes. Overall comments may be either positive or neutral to me, depending on the context. But a Reviewed-by: tag does not have less value to me just because there is no comment associated with it. I _do_ expect reviewers to understand the statement they are making by providing a Reviewed-by: tag, just as I expect patch submitters to understand the statement they are making with their Signed-off: tag. The point I am making, which has been confirmed by this e-mail exchange, is that reviewers have to be careful of yet another detail when providing feedback on a patch. Some, like you and Stephen, may expect me to provide some feedback around a Reviewed-by: tag, while others may get annoyed at me for providing such additional feedback. Guenter