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 27BE3A88 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com (mail-wr0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 531478C for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z52so14687188wrc.2 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:41:08 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Jani Nikula Message-ID: <20170427104108.ppsrmuvsrofnghju@dell> References: <1834084.5qZ8rLimvk@avalon> <1492631703.3217.30.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <3f55980c-1e8d-c841-2555-472ed10eb2fc@sandisk.com> <20170426084253.yvxyzb3khh2fej4j@mwanda> <1493217078.2526.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1493217836.2526.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <87h91arzic.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87h91arzic.fsf@intel.com> Cc: ksummit , Dave Airlie , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , James Bottomley , Doug Ledford , Bart Van Assche , David Miller , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > > Agreed, but I think you'll find most maintainers have a "trust factor" > > for reviewers. Perhaps we should discuss how we arrive at this and how > > we should make it more public. The way I often deal with less trusted > > reviewers is to redo their review and point out all the things they > > missed and ask them not to come back until they can be more thorough. > > I think that's also a bit harsh, because I think the only way to become > a better reviewer is to... review. I know it's hard to balance being > welcoming to new reviewers and ensuring the patches do get proper review > in the end. I'm inclined to agree, this is a harsh approach. My personal method is to allow anyone to review, regardless of their credibility/trust status. I make a point not to hamper or criticise anyone that's genuinely tying to help, unless of f course they are dishing out bogus review comments, then those will need addressing, but only picking up even say 10% of the issues really isn't a problem. It doesn't matter how many points are picked-up or missed, we as Maintainers can always conduct an additional review or one in parallel. I find additional reviewers particularly helpful if I'm overloaded, since I can then insist that the contributor fixes all outstanding review comments before I conduct my, hopefully thorough, review. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blogs