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 61380982 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:04:53 +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 A7F92184 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:04:48 -0700 From: josh@joshtriplett.org To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20150710210448.GE10533@cloud> References: <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> <20150709231352.GB4516@cloud> <20150710164938.72da8ef1@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150710164938.72da8ef1@gandalf.local.home> 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 Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:49:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:13:52 -0700 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > 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, I read your reviews. Yes, you have a bunch of single "Reviewed-by" > tags, but you also have a lot of emails with substantially significant > comments. What Ted is saying, is to see how many significant replies one > has. In fact, I would say if we were to automate this, each significant > reply (one with actual comments), would increase the weight that a > single "Reviewed-by" email would carry. That way people like yourself > would have more weight attached to emails with single "Reviewed-by" > than others that don't have many emails with actual comments attached. Ah, I see what you're getting at now. I thought you were trying to figure out the value of a "Reviewed-by" on an individual patch. But you're right, a review doesn't carry much weight if your reviews *never* find issues; that would imply you're either chery-picking easy patches to review or rubber-stamping bad patches. (And conversely, a Reviewed-by on a patch that turns out to be wrong shouldn't carry any more stigma than submitting such a patch yourself. Everybody has submitted a brown-paper-bag at some point; as long as there's not a pattern of it, that's not a critical issue with reviewing.) - Josh Triplett