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 160BC8B4 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7840A12C for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:13:52 -0700 From: josh@joshtriplett.org To: Theodore Ts'o Message-ID: <20150709231352.GB4516@cloud> References: <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> <20150709201315.GF9417@thunk.org> <20150709205049.GB5154@roeck-us.net> <20150709214718.GG9417@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150709214718.GG9417@thunk.org> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Jason Cooper , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk 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 05:47:18PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:50:49PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > Earlier it was discussed how to improve the recognition of reviewers. > > Your comments seems to suggest the opposite, and may actually discourage > > reviewers. Why should I review Linux kernel code if that is seen > > by some as me trying to "game" the system ? > > So I were designing an initial system that automatically scored > reviewers, I'd be looking to see, from a holistic point of view, how > many reviews were zero-length: > > Reviewed-by: John Q. Random > > ... and nothing else, > > .... versus how many reviews had specific comments on various > different portions of the patch. If possible, the automated system > would try to distinguish between comments that were just pointing out > whitespace issues (which would be a slight positive) with comments > that point out genuine design issues (this will be really hard to do > in an automated fashion, but a very sophisticated nueral network[1] > mgiht be able to hack it). That assumes the patch actually has issues. To use the reviews I do on RCU patches as an example, in a patch series, I might reply to a few patches with "here are some issues; with those fixed, Reviewed-by...", and then reply to the remaining unproblematic patches (individually or in aggregate) with just the Reviewed-by. - Josh Triplett