> On a related note, as maintainers I think we need to put more attention
> to recording the review credits in the commits. It's not unusual for
> review to be more work than writing the patch. The patch authors may be
> new contributors, or just looking at their specific use case, but the
> reviewer should look at the big picture. I think Jon will start tracking
> reviews more regularly, like he did for v4.11 stats [1], but obviously
> the stats are only as good as the input.

I fully agree to this. I hacked git-request-pull to include a list of
people who reviewed or tested patches. The patch is quite a hack,
though. As it works for me(tm) nonetheless, I finally set up a repo
where I will put such snippets which help me in maintaining my
subsystem. And I started the latest version of said patch a minute ago.
So, if other people are interested, it should be more accessible now:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/snippets.git

To get you an idea, here is some example output. More details can be
found in the patch description itself:

=== standard pull-request

The following changes since commit
a121103c922847ba5010819a3f250f1f7fc84ab8:

...

Vlad Tsyrklevich (1):
      i2c: fix kernel memory disclosure in dev interface

=== new stuff starts here

with much appreciated quality assurance from
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Shevchenko (1):
      (Rev.) i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC

Benjamin Tissoires (1):
      (Test) i2c: do not enable fall back to Host Notify by default

Vladimir Zapolskiy (1):
      (Rev.) i2c: print correct device invalid address

=== diffstat, ...